Secret Prisons

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
It just keeps getting worse and worse folks. Now we are using the prisons of the former gulag system we once castigated. Not only are we using the prisons but we are not telling Congress about them. OK, I'm with Green Day, wake me up when September ends. I could not make this stuff up for trashy fiction and be believed.
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; Page A01

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions....
Washington Post
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Oops... duplicate post. Oh well, might as well use it for something!

Weren't the Bushies all up in arms not that long ago because they were mentioned in the same sentence as 'gulags'?

Now we know why that stung so much, hitting so close to home as it did...
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Is this the U.S.A or have we turned into Nazi's? Our own Govt has decided to ignore a little thing like the Constitution and Bill of rights. These people are being held with no trials nothing. This is Scary stuff when you have a Govt going around doing anything it wants and not answering to no one. All this secret stuff can only lead to abuse of power and it has. All they have to do is throw a label on someone like....insurgent or enemy combatant and presto no human rights at all? We are becoming what our forfathers fought against. Another poor example the U.S. is setting under George & the Deferral Gang. You know all those draft dodgers like Cheney, Rove, Libby.............and yes George. Its a sad time to be an American when we have such piss poor sorry butt lack of leadership. Hypocrites.
 

hcuar

macrumors 65816
Jul 23, 2004
1,065
0
Dallas
Dont Hurt Me said:
Is this the U.S.A or have we turned into Nazi's? Our own Govt has decided to ignore a little thing like the Constitution and Bill of rights. These people are being held with no trials nothing. This is Scary stuff when you have a Govt going around doing anything it wants and not answering to no one. All this secret stuff can only lead to abuse of power and it has. All they have to do is throw a label on someone like....insurgent or enemy combatant and presto no human rights at all? We are becoming what our forfathers fought against. Another poor example the U.S. is setting under George & the Deferral Gang. You know all those draft dodgers like Cheney, Rove, Libby.............and yes George. Its a sad time to be an American when we have such piss poor sorry butt lack of leadership. Hypocrites.
Umm... hello? These prisons are holding non US citizens. The consitution and bill of rights protects the rights of American Citizens, not foreign nationals. Our forefathers gave no protective status to such an individual. Only international organizations and treaties have defined such requirements. Being a soverign nation does not require the adherance to such policies.
 

jelloshotsrule

macrumors G3
Feb 7, 2002
9,591
3
serendipity
hcuar said:
Umm... hello? These prisons are holding non US citizens. The consitution and bill of rights protects the rights of American Citizens, not foreign nationals. Our forefathers gave no protective status to such an individual. Only international organizations and treaties have defined such requirements. Being a soverign nation does not require the adherance to such policies.
not true

when our country signs a treaty, it essentially becomes a part of our constitution, from what i understand. i assume this is the case for most treaties at least. the geneva conventions being one of them, i'm sure.

i will check with someone though for clarification
 

hcuar

macrumors 65816
Jul 23, 2004
1,065
0
Dallas
jelloshotsrule said:
not true

when our country signs a treaty, it essentially becomes a part of our constitution, from what i understand. i assume this is the case for most treaties at least. the geneva conventions being one of them, i'm sure.

i will check with someone though for clarification

Yeah... you might want to check on that. That's incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with our constitution. It's a treaty. We've broken, renegociated, and followed many treaties and agreements throughout history.

I'm not sure how old you are, so you may not have hadgovernment in high school yet. The only way to change the constitution is an amendment. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment for general information. Here's a page for info specifically for the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution At the bottom of the page are links about amendments.

We have NO requirement to follow a treaty. If another nation doesn't like our breaking of the treaty, they may declare war, embargo, whatever. However, no nation most likley will due to finacial or military response. AKA the bigger and wealthier you are, the more you can bend the rules. It's not necessarily nice, but it's true.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
hcuar said:
Umm... hello? These prisons are holding non US citizens. The consitution and bill of rights protects the rights of American Citizens, not foreign nationals. Our forefathers gave no protective status to such an individual. Only international organizations and treaties have defined such requirements. Being a soverign nation does not require the adherance to such policies.
Better take a better look at our Constitution, its still holds our govt to standards Bush and the Deferral gang have ignored, sidestepped etc. So because the deferral gang grab someone and give them a label that means they can be thrown in Jail with no trial ever? held for a lifetime?? We are better then this. What are we fighting for if Freedom, Liberty & Justice only applies to those you choose? Look close at the First phrase in the Constitution and tell me where justice is in throwing people into secret jails with no trials, secluded, no lawyers, for the rest of their lives even though they have yet been proven guilty?
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
hcuar said:
Yeah... you might want to check on that. That's incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with our constitution. It's a treaty. We've broken, renegociated, and followed many treaties and agreements throughout history.

I'm not sure how old you are, so you may not have hadgovernment in high school yet. The only way to change the constitution is an amendment. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment for general information. Here's a page for info specifically for the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution At the bottom of the page are links about amendments.

We have NO requirement to follow a treaty. If another nation doesn't like our breaking of the treaty, they may declare war, embargo, whatever. However, no nation most likley will due to finacial or military response. AKA the bigger and wealthier you are, the more you can bend the rules. It's not necessarily nice, but it's true.
A ratified treaty carries the same legal weight as federal law. Not sure how old you are, so you may not have had government in college yet.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
hcuar said:
We have NO requirement to follow a treaty.
the act of signing it is an indication that we'll follow it. just because it's not been formally amended into the constitution doesn't make it any less illegal. i shall note the constitution specifies no speed limits, but breaking them is still illegal.

i'd say that, usually, when the US breaks a treaty, the leadership has changed.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
hcuar said:
Yeah... you might want to check on that. That's incorrect. It has NOTHING to do with our constitution. It's a treaty. We've broken, renegociated, and followed many treaties and agreements throughout history.

I'm not sure how old you are, so you may not have hadgovernment in high school yet. The only way to change the constitution is an amendment. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment for general information. Here's a page for info specifically for the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Constitution At the bottom of the page are links about amendments.

We have NO requirement to follow a treaty. If another nation doesn't like our breaking of the treaty, they may declare war, embargo, whatever. However, no nation most likley will due to finacial or military response. AKA the bigger and wealthier you are, the more you can bend the rules. It's not necessarily nice, but it's true.
Please read the Constitution before posting on what it says.

Article. VI.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
US House of Representatives - US Constitution emphasis added

The US has negotiated many treaties, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. We are bound to follow such treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." The argument that we have broken treaties in the past does nothing to relieve us of our obligations to follow the law, whether that comes from the text of our own Constitution or through negotiated and ratified treaties.

The real question is not your misunderstanding of the importance of treaty obligations, but rather how you cannot be outraged by the lengths this administration has gone to set up a system for detainees that is outside the law and outside any oversight. Is that what our government should stand for?
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
secret prisons, kidnapping citizens of other countries, torture ... in other countries there are 6 days of nightly riots because of two teenagers who get killed by electric shocks hiding from the police in a transformator building :rolleyes:
i'm sure those CRS gendarmes might do wonders if sent to the white house ;)
 

hcuar

macrumors 65816
Jul 23, 2004
1,065
0
Dallas
Sayhey said:
Please read the Constitution before posting on what it says.

US House of Representatives - US Constitution emphasis added

The US has negotiated many treaties, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. We are bound to follow such treaties as the "supreme Law of the Land." The argument that we have broken treaties in the past does nothing to relieve us of our obligations to follow the law, whether that comes from the text of our own Constitution or through negotiated and ratified treaties.

The real question is not your misunderstanding of the importance of treaty obligations, but rather how you cannot be outraged by the lengths this administration has gone to set up a system for detainees that is outside the law and outside any oversight. Is that what our government should stand for?
Again incorrect... See: http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm for a description of what the paragraph entails.

I'm not outraged. I'm rather happy that my safety is being protected by my government. As long as the US follows our constitution, I'm fine with that. If you think that covert intellegence is possible while being prim and proper, you're mistaken.

As to breaking the speed limit not being in the constitution... Please! See the section on how state and local governments may make their own laws which do not violate the federal constitution.
 

hcuar

macrumors 65816
Jul 23, 2004
1,065
0
Dallas
Dont Hurt Me said:
Better take a better look at our Constitution, its still holds our govt to standards Bush and the Deferral gang have ignored, sidestepped etc. So because the deferral gang grab someone and give them a label that means they can be thrown in Jail with no trial ever? held for a lifetime?? We are better then this. What are we fighting for if Freedom, Liberty & Justice only applies to those you choose? Look close at the First phrase in the Constitution and tell me where justice is in throwing people into secret jails with no trials, secluded, no lawyers, for the rest of their lives even though they have yet been proven guilty?
Yes... it's allowed if the subject isn't a US citizen.
 

pseudobrit

macrumors 68040
Jul 23, 2002
3,418
4
Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
hcuar said:
Again incorrect... See: http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm for a description of what the paragraph entails.
...

As long as the US follows our constitution, I'm fine with that. If you think that covert intellegence is possible while being prim and proper, you're mistaken.
I'll repeat for emphasis: While a signed, ratified treaty does not act as an amendment, it carries the same weight as a federal law. Therefore, violation of the Geneva Conventions is equivalent to breaking federal law.
 

hcuar

macrumors 65816
Jul 23, 2004
1,065
0
Dallas
pseudobrit said:
I'll repeat for emphasis: While a signed, ratified treaty does not act as an amendment, it carries the same weight as a federal law. Therefore, violation of the Geneva Conventions is equivalent to breaking federal law.
My point is that it doesn't act as an amendment. So in order to serve the consitution, a treaty may be violated due to the constitution trumping a treaty. In addition, a treaty may be revoked or repealed.

I believe the spirit of the above mention paragraph by another poster was to ensure that state or local governments didn't pass laws which violate a treaty established by the federal government. The federal government may violate the treaty (with or without notification).

In the case of the geneva convention treaty, it wasn't violated based the classification given to the "insurgents". Hairsplitting yes... but legal.
 

jelloshotsrule

macrumors G3
Feb 7, 2002
9,591
3
serendipity
wow. thanks for the insults.

i will refrain from the multitude coming to mind.

from an email of someone i know, who just happens to know her stuff and by the way, works for the state dept. ie, the people who ultimately have to know. thanks for the gov't lesson though.

Treaties, which must have Senate Advice and Consent, are referred to in
the Constitution together with the Constitution and federal law as the
highest law of the land. Not all international agreements are Treaties
(in fact, most are not).

The U.S. ratified (Treaty status) the Geneva Conventions in 1955 and that
makes them part of U.S. law. (But we have not yet ratified two of the
Protocols Additional to the Conventions).
amen
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
So when Clinton split legal hairs about what sex was you were totally in agreement with his technical assertion that he didn't lie?
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
hcuar said:
Again incorrect... See: http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm for a description of what the paragraph entails.

I'm not outraged. I'm rather happy that my safety is being protected by my government. As long as the US follows our constitution, I'm fine with that. If you think that covert intellegence is possible while being prim and proper, you're mistaken.

As to breaking the speed limit not being in the constitution... Please! See the section on how state and local governments may make their own laws which do not violate the federal constitution.

If you post here long enough you will find that linking to right-wing wingnut's websites as references to try an uphold a weak argument does not impress anyone.

The point here isn't whether the US can enter into a treaty obligation that conflicts with the Constitution. There is no conflict between the obligations of the US under treaty obligations concerning the treatment of prisoners or detainees during time of war and the US Constitution. Far from it. Our Constitution anticipates such obligations and places them on equal footing as federal law. That is the meaning of the Article VI clause 2. If you want a basic understanding of this I recommend the US Senate's web site and the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee's study on the question.
Where a treaty is deemed to be self-executing, any
conflicting provisions of State law must yield. This principle,
which is expressly enshrined in the supremacy clause of the
Constitution, was early affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ware
v. Hylton.\50\ According to Justice Chase:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 199 (1796).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A treaty cannot be the supreme law of the land, that
is, of all the United States, if any act of a State
Legislature can stand in its way. If the Constitution
of a State * * * must give way to a treaty, and fall
before it; can it be questioned, whether the less
power, an act of the State Legislature, must not be
prostrate? It is the declared will of the people of the
United States, that every treaty made by the authority
of the United States, shall be superior to the
Constitution and laws of any individual State; and
their will alone is to decide. If a law of a State,
contrary to a treaty, is not void, but voidable only,
by a repeal, or nullification by a State Legislature,
this certain consequence follows, that the will of a
small part of the United States may control or defeat
the will of the whole.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Ibid. at 236-237. The principle has been reaffirmed by the
Court in numerous cases. For additional case authority, see
Constitution--Analysis and Interpretation, pp. 472-474.

In the event of a conflict between a self-executing treaty
and a Federal statute, it is well-settled that legal primacy
will be accorded the measure which is later in time, albeit the
courts will endeavor to harmonize the respective international
and domestic obligations if possible. As indicated by the
Supreme Court in Whitney v. Robertson:
By the Constitution a treaty is placed on the same
footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of
legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be
the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy
is given to either over the other. When the two relate
to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to
construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can
be done without violating the language of either; but
if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will
control the other, provided always the stipulation of
the treaty on the subject is self-executing. If the
country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied
with the action of the legislative department, it may
present its complaint to the executive head of the
government and take such other measures as it may deem
essential for the protection of its interests. The
courts can afford no redress. Whether the complaining
nation has just cause or our country was justified in
its legislation, are not matters for judicial
cognizance.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 124 U.S. 581, 594 (1888). The Court has repeated the rule in
many cases. See discussion in Constitution--Analysis and
Interpretation, pp. 478-479, and Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371, 376-77
(1998).
What you are in effect saying is that you don't have to follow any federal laws [read as treaties] that you think don't agree with your flawed understanding of the Constitution. Never mind that this enables torture, "extraordinary rendition," unlimited detention, or any other horrific practice condemned throughout most of the rest of the world - and up to the advent of this administration in this country as well.
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
i guess we all know how much problems the US still have with other countries laws or international treaties.. like flying over neutral countries with armed stealth bombers to save fuel (500 million $ stealth bombers getting intercepted + photographed by Saab Drakens from 1960: priceless)

or like it happened to a friend living in vienna near the US embassy where during a terror warning US marines simply locked the street completly and woudn't let him into his flat ... not once but twice
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
hcuar said:
Yes... it's allowed if the subject isn't a US citizen.
Well, it's good to know that it's not illegal. I guess that makes it ok then. The only thing that surprises me is where you found this article. It's sad that I've become so used to things like this that I pretty much figured this was common knowledge. The worst part, is that this doesn't make us any safer. Quite the opposite really. Not only do we not always get what we want out of them information wise (if we even have the right people), others see us as no better (or worse) and Al Qaida gains a few new members as we loose a few more allies. And here I thought we were supposed to be the good guys. :(

Remember this when the government wants to intrude on your life for the sake of "security". Ben Franklin, Martin Niemoller, Tom Jefferson, and others.
 

tristan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 19, 2003
765
0
high-rise in beautiful bethesda
Geneva convention does *not* apply. It only applies to enemy soldiers in uniform on the battlefield. Al queda, insurgents, etc are considered outside the rules of warfare and undeserving of the privileges afforded to legitimate prisoners of war. This is because they hide among civilians. It's why spies and saboteurs in WWII were shot rather than getting trials.

There is also the legitimate argument that the Geneva convention applies only to signatories. if Al Queda didn't sign the agreement, they don't get its protection, and we shouldn't expect it from them. #2 argument against Geneva.

I have no problem with the US using tough tactics against enemy soldiers and terrorists - assuming that they're really terrorists and not some civilians that got rounded up by "mistake".

FYI Where the Geneva convention does apply is to civilian populations of occupied territories - i.e. Iraq. Up until the handover, you could make an argument that the US breached the Geneva convention by not taking better care of the Iraqi civilians (i.e. healthcare, hospital facilities, etc). But it's not like the insurgents made it easy for us.
 

Stella

macrumors G3
Apr 21, 2003
8,272
4,635
Canada
hcuar said:
Umm... hello? These prisons are holding non US citizens. The consitution and bill of rights protects the rights of American Citizens, not foreign nationals. Our forefathers gave no protective status to such an individual. Only international organizations and treaties have defined such requirements. Being a soverign nation does not require the adherance to such policies.
Then don't whine and complain when foreign countries beat up POW american soliders...

.. if your country can't treat other nationalities well, why should others.