Renditions

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

so Charity Case, let me ask you somethin', if a situation arose where you have to be tortured by people ? will you accept it peacefully ?

like if Ben Laden captures you, and goes like " listen Charity case, i like you, you know, GN'R ! Big fan ! , but you see, we have to torture you so we can save our al-quaida members .... so you understand ... "

??

[jarmo]

US 'shifts' position on torture 
 
The US secretary of state says the UN treaty on torture applies to American interrogators in the US and overseas, in an apparent shift in US policy. 

The Bush administration has previously said the convention, which bans cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, does not apply to US personnel abroad.

Correspondents say a reason for the shift might be pressure from Congress.

Condoleezza Rice's European tour has been dogged by claims the CIA used foreign bases to hold terror suspects.

The UN high commissioner for human rights has called on the US to provide information about any secret detention centres and to provide access to them.

Louise Arbour said such detention centres could create conditions where torture might be used, but she welcomed Ms Rice's statement.

Pressure

Ms Rice said the US was bound by the UN Convention against Torture (CAT).

It "extends to US personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the US or outside the US," Ms Rice said in Ukraine.

Her comments appear to contrast with the US Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, who said last year the convention did not apply to US interrogations of foreigners overseas.

US officials travelling with Ms Rice were quoted by Reuters news agency as saying it represented a marked shift in US policy.

But, according to AFP news agency, one aide to Ms Rice said her remarks were "a clarification of policy, not a shift".

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Ms Rice's comments signal an important change in US policy on the use of harsh methods of interrogation - and an apparent softening of the White House position.

The White House has allowed the CIA to use practices such as mock drowning of prisoners, which would almost certainly be considered unacceptable under the terms of the convention, our correspondent says.

Some former detainees have alleged they were part of a US network of "ghost flights" and secret prisons run by the CIA around the world.

They claim they were subjected to beatings, electric shock treatments and solitary confinement during their detention.

Ms Rice has admitted that terror suspects are flown abroad for interrogation under a process called rendition, but denied they were tortured.

She refused to address the claims of secret CIA prisons abroad where suspects could be interrogated without reference to international law.

A number of senior Republicans have been campaigning recently for the White House to be clearer in defining and banning torture.

Claims and denials

Claims that the CIA was holding al-Qaeda suspects in eastern Europe, Thailand and Afghanistan were first reported on 2 November.

New York-based Human Rights Watch said it had evidence that suspects were taken to Poland and Romania.

Both Poland and Thailand on Wednesday reiterated their denials that any secret CIA jails were allowed to operate on their territory. Romania has also dismissed the claims.

Germany, Spain, Sweden and Iceland are all investigating claims that CIA planes landed at their airports while transporting terror suspects.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/



/jarmo

[Izzy]

US 'shifts' position on torture?
 
The US secretary of state says the UN treaty on torture applies to American interrogators in the US and overseas, in an apparent shift in US policy.?

The Bush administration has previously said the convention, which bans cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, does not apply to US personnel abroad.

The fools! Don't they see that this leaves the Fatherland open to attacks by foriegn devils!

What ever is next? Releasing people held for years without trial?

[Charity Case]

So your arguement is we shouldn't do it because of morals?  Fuckign weak!  To answer someone else's question, no I an in no way religious.  I am a bonifide agnostic which makes me religious in the smallest way.  I do not believe in any of the definitions of god by any of the established religions and in fact think religion is a crutch for the weak.  It is also the cause of way too much of the worlds violence.  I detest organized religion.

Your arguement is actuallly "how would I like it if I was carried off and tortured" and "what is bin laden caught me".  First, I am not a terrorist and do not look like a terrorist and therefore have nothing to worry aboutin regards to being rendered.  Second, if I was caught by bin laden, do you think he's have the morals to not torture me?  Please people, get a clue.  And no matter what the US's state position is on torture, I'd be willing to bet it goes on when needed and I would go as far as to endorse it.  You guys kill me with your sensitivity.

[sandman]

the people have spoken....


Torture "OK" according to majority in America, France and elsewhere

Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

The United States has drawn criticism from human rights groups and many governments, especially in Europe, for its treatment of terror suspects. President Bush and other top officials have said the U.S. does not torture, but some suspects in American custody have alleged they were victims of severe mistreatment.

The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.

"I don't think we should go out and string everybody up by their thumbs until somebody talks. But if there is definitely a good reason to get an answer, we should do whatever it takes," said Billy Adams, a retiree from Tomball, Texas.

In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. Almost nine in 10 in South Korea and just over half in France and Britain felt that way.

Accusations of torture, reports of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe and claims of shadowy flights carrying terror suspects have further strained U.S. relations with some European countries.

Mariella Salvi, who works for a humanitarian organization in Rome, said: "Human beings, as well as their rights, have to be defended, no matter what individuals are suspected of, or charged for."

The disagreements make cooperation on law enforcement and counterterrorism more difficult, said Lee Feinstein of the Council on Foreign Relations, a group of scholars and other specialists in foreign policy.

During a visit to Germany on Tuesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was peppered with questions about U.S. anti-terrorism policies, including the five-month detention of Lebanese-born Khaled al-Masri and reports of secret CIA prisons and use of European airports and airspace to move terror suspects. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the United States had admitted making a mistake in the case of al-Masri, a German who contended in a lawsuit in Alexandria, Va., on Tuesday that he was wrongfully imprisoned by the CIA and tortured.

[Sterlingdog]

Your arguement is actuallly "how would I like it if I was carried off and tortured" and "what is bin laden caught me".? First, I am not a terrorist and do not look like a terrorist and therefore have nothing to worry aboutin regards to being rendered.? Second, if I was caught by bin laden, do you think he's have the morals to not torture me?? Please people, get a clue.? And no matter what the US's state position is on torture, I'd be willing to bet it goes on when needed and I would go as far as to endorse it.? You guys kill me with your sensitivity.

Of course Bin Laden and his type would torture people.  That's the point, we are supposed to be better than that.  More civilized.  Just because the bad guys do it, doesn't justify us doing it. 

As for the poll mentioned before, I'd like to see exactly how the question was phrased to get people to respond they approve of torture. 

[Charity Case]

We can be better than bin laden and still torture people.  One thing is not exclusive of the other.  Choosing to use torture on rare occasions to saves thousands of lives is by definition better than bin laden.  The point here is to use common sense.  If the torture of a handful saves the lives of thousands then it makes sense.  The poll is irrelevant in my opinion (as most polls are).  The point is to use your common sense.  Something that is in short supply all too often.

[Booker Floyd]

We can be better than bin laden and still torture people.

 

Ridiculous.

"We do not torture." - George W. Bush

[SLCPUNK]

So your arguement is we shouldn't do it because of morals?  Fuckign weak!  To answer someone else's question, no I an in no way religious.  I am a bonifide agnostic which makes me religious in the smallest way.  I do not believe in any of the definitions of god by any of the established religions and in fact think religion is a crutch for the weak.  It is also the cause of way too much of the worlds violence.  I detest organized religion.

Your arguement is actuallly "how would I like it if I was carried off and tortured" and "what is bin laden caught me".  First, I am not a terrorist and do not look like a terrorist and therefore have nothing to worry aboutin regards to being rendered.  Second, if I was caught by bin laden, do you think he's have the morals to not torture me?  Please people, get a clue.  And no matter what the US's state position is on torture, I'd be willing to bet it goes on when needed and I would go as far as to endorse it.  You guys kill me with your sensitivity.

You should note.

I have forwarded your IP address to the CIA and let them know that I suspect you have ties with Al Queda.

You should have nothing to worry about.

the people have spoken....


Torture "OK" according to majority in America, France and elsewhere

Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

Hey Sandman...gotta link?

[D]

I do agree that torturing isnt right but I dont think the media should be reporting where these people are being held. That could be very harmful to those countries especially if Al Qeada decides to retalliate.

That to me is a fine line between responsible journalism, [Cause I do agree that transferring prisoners to places with lesser laws isnt the way to go] but still yet these papers are putting countries at risk and in danger.


Then again this is a war and I dont think these people should be treated like American citizens and should be given the rights that an American would have either.

I m on the fence, i dont know, I see it both ways really.

On one hand being a democracy and a nation of our status, we shouldnt be doing this.

However, if doing this protects from terrorists attacks and saves innocent people's lives, I cant really disagree with it either.

I dont value the lives of terrorist scum and I dont know how valid their rights should be when it comes to something like this, u cant be MR Nice guy and win a war.

[SLCPUNK]

I think some of you are missing the point, while others blatantly don't care what the point is.

Keyword: suspect.

Just because somebody is picked up does not mean they are a terrorist. It just means they have been picked up to be questioned.

Charity would disagree because he is a sociopath, and he does not care if they are guilty or not. He is a racist who does not care if an innocent person gets tortured, or if children get their legs blown off. As long as they are brown it is ok with him.

Anyway, in the real world, and in a democracy it is "innocent until proven guilty". We are a country of laws, bound by laws (supposed to be anyway) and should act as such. Not disregard them as we see fit.

Again this had been repeated endlessly. The same dipshits pretend never to have read this, come back and spout off again about "taking care of the terrorists" when they know damn well they may not be. But, (not to be overly redundant), such is the behavior of a psychopathic personality.

[Charity Case]

Charity would disagree because he is a sociopath, and he does not care if they are guilty or not. He is a racist who does not care if an innocent person gets tortured, or if children get their legs blown off. As long as they are brown it is ok with him.

Moronic drivel.  I said to use torture in rare cases (as in when you know they are guilty) is justifiable.  You spout off like I condon it for every prisoner of war.   

the comment about "as long as they are brown", that is disgraceful.  I have never said a racist remark because of the clor of someone's skin.  To insinuate is bogus on your part.  I have stated my dislike for the muslin religion and questioned the contributions of Arabs, but I have never tied that into a skin color. 

I do care if innocent people get tortured.  I would never condone that.  that is why I have stated that it is good policy in "RARE" cases where we know someone has information. 

Get a clue.

[sandman]

Torture "OK" according to majority in America, France and elsewhere

Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

Hey Sandman...gotta link?

personally, i think this is major news. it's interesting that this did not get any significant exposure my our media.

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4211662&nav=0RaP

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/13347044.htm?source=rss&channel=miamiherald_nation

Poll: Allies think torture is justified in some cases

An AP-Ipsos poll found that U.S. allies are divided on the question of torture for terror suspects, while a majority opposes the CIA's operation of detention camps on their soil.

By WILL LESTER

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Most people in eight countries that are American allies don't want the United States conducting secret interrogations of terror suspects on their soil, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

Anxiety about recent reports of secret prisons run by the CIA in eastern Europe has been heightened by the ongoing debate on the use of torture.

The poll found a majority in the United States, France, Britain and South Korea refused to rule out torture in some cases.

The poll found Americans and residents of many of the allied countries divided on the question of torture, with about as many saying it's OK in some cases as those saying it never should be used.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is traveling in Europe this week, has said the United States is following all laws and treaties on the treatment of terrorism suspects and has shared intelligence with its allies that has ``helped protect European countries from attack, saving European lives.''

Like other U.S. officials, Rice has refused to answer the underlying question of whether the CIA operated secret, Soviet-era prisons in Eastern Europe and whether CIA flights carried al Qaeda prisoners through European airports.

She said the U.S. ``will use every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists.''

About two-thirds of the people living in Canada, Mexico, South Korea and Spain said they would oppose allowing the U.S. to secretly interrogate terror suspects in their countries.

Almost that many in Britain, France, Germany and Italy said they feel the same way. Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations at home by their own government.

Officials with the European Union and in at least a half-dozen European countries are investigating the reports of secret U.S. interrogations in eastern Europe.

The EU has threatened to revoke voting rights of any nation in the European Union that was host to a clandestine detention center.

After the report of secret prisons overseas, President Bush said, ``We do not torture.''

U.S. military forces have held hundreds of suspects at known installations outside the United States, including at the U.S. naval base at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba.

The U.S. has adopted aggressive interrogation techniques since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- techniques some fear occasionally cross the line into torture.

''I thought we were the good guys,'' said Alan Schwartz, a political independent who lives near Buffalo, N.Y. ``I thought we were the ones with the high standards.''

On the issue of torture, 61 percent of Americans refused to rule it out. About one in 10 -- 11 percent -- said it could often be justified, while 27 percent said sometimes and 23 percent said rarely. Almost four in 10 -- 36 percent -- said it could never be justified.

Majorities in Britain, France and South Korea felt similarly, while in Canada, Mexico and Germany there was a nearly even split.

Only in Italy and Spain do most people oppose torture under any circumstances.

The strongest opposition to torture came in Italy, where six in 10 said it is never justified.

The polls of about 1,000 adults in each of the nine countries were conducted between Nov. 15 and Nov28.

Each poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[SLCPUNK]

 I have stated my dislike for the muslin religion and questioned the contributions of Arabs, but I have never tied that into a skin color. 

Same difference, don't try to twist it around at this point.

Man you are a liar. I have never seen one worse than you.

Hell you even say American lives are worth it to liberate Iraq. Who ever knew you were so fond of the people who seem to detest so much at the same time?

[SLCPUNK]

Most people in eight countries that are American allies don't want the United States conducting secret interrogations of terror suspects on their soil, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

[sandman]

Almost two-thirds in the United States support such interrogations at home by their own government.

61 percent of Americans refused to rule torture out.

Majorities in Britain, France and South Korea felt similarly.


and polls have become so important to people on these threads recently.

again, the people have spoken.

[Charity Case]

 I have stated my dislike for the muslin religion and questioned the contributions of Arabs, but I have never tied that into a skin color.?

Same difference, don't try to twist it around at this point.

Man you are a liar. I have never seen one worse than you.

Hell you even say American lives are worth it to liberate Iraq. Who ever knew you were so fond of the people who seem to detest so much at the same time?

There are other reasons to liberate Iraq and install a democracy in Iraq other than the improving of Iraqi lives.  In my mind, improving their lives is a by-product of the mission.  Install democracy in that back-assward place and hopefully letting it spead throughout the region is better reason to liberate Iraq.  Getting ourselves a nice democratic ally and military base in such an important geographic region is another.  Freeing the Iraqis is good PR, but I highly doubt it is a motiviating factor for the US.  Making sure oil is not controled by homicidal maniacs or terrorists is probably higher on the list.

You look like a fucking fool using the same name calling in every post btw.  "liar"  "racist"  Why not drop the name calling and have a discussion.  Don't make me go crying to jarmo like some of you have done.   

[Charity Case]

Most people in eight countries that are American allies don't want the United States conducting secret interrogations of terror suspects on their soil, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

lmfao, this is the quote you pulled out.  Priceless...absolutely priceless.  Now I'm not much on polls, but slcpunk has practically staked his life on them here on this board.  First he shoved the presidential election polls in our face leading up to the election (he looked foolish afterward of course), and now he shoves Bush's approval rating around (again he will look foolish IMO).  So slc, if polls are so damn important to you, why is this one wrong? 

[Izzy]

Moronic drivel.? I said to use torture in rare cases (as in when you know they are guilty) is justifiable.?

If they are so blatantly guilty - how come they don't get put on trial, should be an open and shut case eh?

You spout off like I condon it for every prisoner of war. ?

Just the ones we reckon could be guilty - what happens if the CIA reckons your guilty?

the comment about "as long as they are brown", that is disgraceful.

Indeed, u also hate blacks, chinese, asians, poor people etc...

I have never said a racist remark because of the clor of someone's skin.

Wheren't u banned for just that?

To insinuate is bogus on your part.

Sure....

I have stated my dislike for the muslin religion

Oh my...

and questioned the contributions of Arabs,

Nothing about skin colour here....apart from the Arab comment...oh dear

but I have never tied that into a skin color. ?

Arabs haven't contributed much and....thats not a rascist comment?

I do care if innocent people get tortured.

No u don't, u said its okay to torture them even without a conviction in a court of law

I would never condone that.

Good good!

that is why I have stated that it is good policy in "RARE" cases where we know someone has information. ?

...and yet can't get them convicted ina ?court due to lack of evidence....hmmm

Get a clue.

Yeah - its obvious non-whites are evil!

[sandman]

Most people in eight countries that are American allies don't want the United States conducting secret interrogations of terror suspects on their soil, an AP-Ipsos poll found.

lmfao, this is the quote you pulled out.? Priceless...absolutely priceless.? Now I'm not much on polls, but slcpunk has practically staked his life on them here on this board.? First he shoved the presidential election polls in our face leading up to the election (he looked foolish afterward of course), and now he shoves Bush's approval rating around (again he will look foolish IMO).? So slc, if polls are so damn important to you, why is this one wrong??

isn't it hilarious! 

I thought it was strange this ?non-biased? AP writer would start the story off like that. The statement seems so out of place. That?s why I posted that article instead of others.

It?s a great example of the liberal media spoon feeding left-wingers exactly what they want to hear.