• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees

stekim said:
Well, I think we need to take a little step back.



So here's what we know to be fact: Nothing.
Click to expand...
That's right, we know nothing, but others may know much more. It's the CIA.
 
Here is a link where RightinNYC agrees that denying Habes Corpus rights to "suspected" terrorist supects is a good thing to do. He thinks our Government can just hold suspects forever if the President says OK.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...a-detaining-terror-suspects-indefinitely.html

As I said earlier....the GOP is over run with Authoritarians....all the real Conservatives have jumped ship.....to the Libertarian Party or Conservative Democrats.
 
Last edited:
dragondad said:
Here is a link where RightinNYC agrees that denying Habes Corpus rights to "suspected" terrorist supects is a good thing to do. He thinks our Government can just hold suspects forever if the President says OK.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...a-detaining-terror-suspects-indefinitely.html

As I said earlier....the GOP is over run with Authoritarians....all the real Conservatives have jumped ship.....to the Libertarian Party or Conservative Democrats.
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah, sure. :roll:
 
Here is a link of "claimed Conservative" RightinNYC

defending the use of Bush's signing statements...which effectively claim that the President is above the law if he declares so.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...may-allow-mail-opening-without-warrant-2.html


Do you notice a pattern here?????

Fake Conservatives are real concerned about law breaking and the weakening of the Constitution when Democrats are in power....but the are fine with erosions of Civil Liberties and reducing checks on Governmental power when their guys are in power.


It's known as not having any principles.
 
Last edited:
dragondad said:
Here is a link of "claimed Conservative" RightinNYC

defending the use of Bush's signing statements...which effectively claim that the President is above the law if he declares so.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...may-allow-mail-opening-without-warrant-2.html


Do you notice a pattern here?????

Fake Conservatives are real concerned about law breaking and the weakening of the Constitution when Democrats are in power....but the are fine with erosions of Civil Liberties and checks on Governmental power when their guys are in power.


It's known as not having any principles.
Click to expand...
Hillarious coming from the side that believes the Constitution is a living document.
 
American said:
Hillarious coming from the side that believes the Constitution is a living document.
Click to expand...

That's all you can come up with? Your side does it too???

That's the same lame excuse every Authoritarian all over the World would say.

It's OK for me to wrong because the other side doesnt play by the rules either!

And for the record I don't speak for the "other side".

My views on Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law and the Constitution are consistent no matter who is in power.
 
dragondad said:
That's all you can come up with? Your side does it too???

That's the same lame excuse every Authoritarian all over the World would say.

It's OK for me to wrong because the other side doesnt play by the rules either!

And for the record I don't speak for the "other side".

My views on Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law and the Constitution are consistent no matter who is in power.
Click to expand...



So then why are you not condemming this and instead screaming about the last administration?
 
The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

Investigators are looking into allegations that laws protecting classified information were breached when three lawyers showed their clients the photographs, the sources said. The lawyers were apparently attempting to identify CIA officers and contractors involved in the agency's interrogation of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists in facilities outside the United States, where the agency employed harsh techniques.
Click to expand...

Damn. Just damn.
No law against outing people?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So then why are you not condemming this and instead screaming about the last administration?
Click to expand...

So are you looking for something along the lines of where I wrote this???

""And btw, Obama is illegally carrying out these same policies so I'm all for nailing his ass should Congress grow some balls.""
 
dragondad said:
So are you looking for something along the lines of where I wrote this???

""And btw, Obama is illegally carrying out these same policies so I'm all for nailing his ass should Congress grow some balls.""
Click to expand...




I saw that, but you seem to be misplacing your anger. The last guy is not in power. A passing statement of condemnation of the left wing guy IMO does not explain your overzeal of the last guy.

Where is your sustained outrage you are showing towards one party, that you are not showing to another?
 
RightinNYC said:
Lawyers Showed Photos of Covert CIA Officers to Guantanamo Bay Detainees - washingtonpost.com

Let me get this straight: Some attorneys from the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers used information obtained in the course of defending their clients to hire investigators to take pictures of covert CIA operatives, and then showed them to Guantanamo detainees.

You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

There's a difference between zealous advocacy and....this. This is just wrong.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone find this kind of despicable behavior from these Left wing nutjobs surprising?

God forbid we should attempt to protect our citizens from future terrorist attacks. After all, many today are pretending 9-11, the attack on the Cole and many other events never occurred.

:roll:
 
tlmorg02 said:
This may indeed put our agents at risk and is extremely wrong. These groups should be charged just as those involved in the Plame leak.
Click to expand...

How trite, yet there was no culpability in the Plame affair and after $40 millions were spent, no charges were brought against anyone or group for this claim.

Why is it that you attempt to keep spreading what has now been found to be a LIE/Fabrication for purely partisan political purposes?
 
tlmorg02 said:
To a point I agree with you. However, this war on terror, as it were, is a new concept. Generally one army fights another and you have POW's. However, as Al Qaeda and the lot have no standard uniform, terrorists of these camps pose a difficult question. Should we treat them as POW's until the War on Terror is complete, or do we treat them as international criminals? Many feel the former is accurate, but is it possible to actually get to a point when the war on terror is won? Also, these guys are part of a unit that is out to destroy Western culture. If they were acting alone it would be an easy question to answer, they are international criminals. However, as they are not, and tend to have a chain of command and central authority, they may indeed be considered POW's.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many drug runners or gang members we have put in detainment as unlawful combatants we can pretty much use this term with anyone at this point. Hell we have a declared war on drugs. Lets start using that term as well
 
Agent Ferris said:
You mean a non-covert agent previously outed by the CIA itself not to mention by her own husband who was busy trying to get credibility for his bull**** Niger story by peddling his wife's name around to every reporter who would listen, that's how Armitage knew she was CIA in the first place, but don't let the facts stand in the way of a good smear campaign.
Click to expand...


When was she outed by the CIA or her husband prior to the outing in the paper? She was covert the CIA referred the matter to Justice and the CIA director stated she was covert. The only part that was bull**** about the Niger story was the documents were forged and the administration was told not to use it in the state of the union address and did it anyway.
 
JakeFromWI said:
I say we look to our Constitution and to International law for an answer. It is understood that it's easier said than done. Thank you kindly for the clarifications though.
Click to expand...

When we look at the REALITY of laws and Geneva Conventions, we can find no support for your desperate and illogical assertions that these terrorist thugs acting as non-uniformed enemy combatants who represent no nations should be given Constitutional protections or Geneva Convention protections.

We do owe it to ourselves to conduct ourselves in a civil manner and Abu Ghraib shows that when we correctly prosecuted individuals for acting on their own outside of our code of conduct. But the controlled situations that were conducted on a select few post 9-11 in our desperate efforts to protect innocent lives hardly suggest uncivil actions.

We provide them with clean clothes, three meals a day, medical care and prayer rugs.

Contrast that with how YOU would be treated had they captured you, OR, how the innocent people working in the Pentagon and World Trade Center were treated. I can still see the bodies of our fellow citizens falling through the air to their imminent deaths desperate to escape a worse death of fire and being crushed under the weight of tons of steel, glass and cement.

Perhaps you need to watch some film as a constant reminder of who we are dealing with here. These aren't common every day variety criminals.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention
Click to expand...

Please show me where these non-uniformed combatants and terrorists who do not represent a legitimate nation applies under this article:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Correct Answer: they don't fall under the Geneva Conventions.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Sorry, Article 3...

"In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. . ."
Click to expand...

I would like you to re-read this section and then desperately attempt to explain how these non-uniformed terrorists apply here (I am highlighting the pertinent passages to make it easier for you to figure this out):

occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions
 
PogueMoran said:
I wonder how many drug runners or gang members we have put in detainment as unlawful combatants we can pretty much use this term with anyone at this point. Hell we have a declared war on drugs. Lets start using that term as well
Click to expand...

Got any evidence/facts to support this FALSE assertion?
 
The only part that was bull**** about the Niger story was the documents were forged and the administration was told not to use it in the state of the union address and did it anyway.
Click to expand...

Not true.

However, George Tenet has admitted that making the claim was a mistake stating "The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
Click to expand...
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_forgery]Niger uranium forgeries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
Truth Detector said:
Got any evidence/facts to support this FALSE assertion?
Click to expand...

I didn't make an assertion. I said I wondered how many we've treated the same way. According to the justifications used we could say drug runners and gang members are unlawful combatants and could be detained as well
 
PogueMoran said:
This claim was already disproven with the NIE and multiple intelligence sources in 2002. This had already stopped being circulated. So it being in the president's state of the union address was bull****.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. In fact, the British still believe it to be true.
 
Gill said:
You are wrong. In fact, the British still believe it to be true.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at your link here from Wikipedia

According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." [6] With the release of the 2002 NIE report, the Bush administration was criticized for including the statement in the State of the Union despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity.
Click to expand...
 
PogueMoran said:
I'm looking at your link here from Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Well, if the Washington Post says it, then it must be true. :roll:

Are they talking about this 2002 NIE Report???

A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which would be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.
Click to expand...
Key Judgments (from October 2002 NIE) - Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons

And from the Butler Committee:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible. c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom