'CIA prisons:' EU warns members

[bitwhys]

you still don't get it



its not about the laws of other countries.



its the treaties. pick the right countries and the CIA is ABOVE the law.

[DreamTone7]

LOL! You still don't get it. It's not up to us to make a determination as to what is and isn't legal in another country. It's up to them...just like it's up to them (and not you, me, or the EU) to decide if anything is going on that shouldn't be. You can't impose our laws upon another country. Do you think it's right to do that? You apparently do.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[bitwhys]

but you already did.



read the act.

[DreamTone7]

If they signed it, then it IS their laws...and only they can change them.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[bitwhys]

signed what?



"The US government has said its laws have not been broken."



it doesn't matter what the CIA do in certain countries, not even short of murder. as long as the operatives make it back to the US is it legally no harm no foul.



which countries those are, I don't know. the EU investigations will probably answer that for me.

Edited by: bitwhys at: 12/1/05 23:22

[NRKofOver]

Quote:

---

"Guilty 'til proven innocent" attitudes duly noted.

---

You keep bringing this up but the reality is that you support such an approach, at least based on your past posts.



What do you think detaining 'enemy combatants' indefinitely without access to counsel and void of charges mean? It seems to be pretty clear that it means 'guilty until proven innocent'.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[HKRockChick]

CIA Realizes It's Been Using Black Highlighters All These Years



www.theonion.com/content/node/43014



November 30, 2005 | Issue 41•48



LANGLEY, VA—A report released Tuesday by the CIA's Office of the Inspector General revealed that the CIA has mistakenly obscured hundreds of thousands of pages of critical intelligence information with black highlighters.



According to the report, sections of the documents— "almost invariably the most crucial passages"—are marred by an indelible black ink that renders the lines impossible to read, due to a top-secret highlighting policy that began at the agency's inception in 1947.



CIA Director Porter Goss has ordered further internal investigation.



"Why did it go on for this long, and this far?" said Goss in a press conference called shortly after the report's release. "I'm as frustrated as anyone. You can't read a single thing that's been highlighted. Had I been there to advise [former CIA director] Allen Dulles, I would have suggested the traditional yellow color—or pink."



Goss added: "There was probably some really, really important information in these documents."



When asked by a reporter if the black ink was meant to intentionally obscure, Goss countered, "Good God, why?"



Goss lamented the fact that the public will probably never know the particulars of such historic events as the Cold War, the civil-rights movement, or the growth of the international drug trade.



"I'm sure the CIA played major roles in all these things," Goss said. "But now we'll never know for sure."



In addition to clouding the historical record, the use of the black highlighters, also known as "permanent markers," may have encumbered or even prevented critical operations. CIA scholar Matthew Franks was forced to abandon work on a book about the Bay Of Pigs invasion after declassified documents proved nearly impossible to read.



"With all the highlighting in the documents I unearthed in the National Archives, it's really no wonder that the invasion failed," Franks said. "I don't see how the field operatives and commandos were expected to decipher their orders."



The inspector general's report cited in particular the damage black highlighting did to documents concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy, thousands of pages of which "are completely highlighted, from top to bottom margin."



"It is unclear exactly why CIA bureaucrats sometimes chose to emphasize entire documents," the report read. "Perhaps the documents were extremely important in every detail, or the agents, not unlike college freshmen, were overwhelmed by the reading material and got a little carried away."



Also unclear is why black highlighters were chosen in the first place. Some blame it on the closed, elite culture of the CIA itself. A former CIA officer speaking on the condition of anonymity said highlighting documents with black pens was a common and universal practice.



"It seemed counterintuitive, but the higher-ups didn't know what they were doing," the ex-officer said. "I was once ordered to feed documents into a copying machine in order to make backups of some very important top-secret records, but it turned out to be some sort of device that cut the paper to shreds."

[MIKE BURN]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/12/02/france.cia.ap/index.html



Report: 2 CIA flights stopped in France



Friday, December 2, 2005 Posted: 1119 GMT (1919 HKT)



PARIS, France (AP) -- Two flights chartered by the CIA made stopovers in France in 2002 and 2005, the French newspaper Le Figaro said Friday, adding to likely questions facing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she visits Europe next week.



French officials said they had no knowledge of the clandestine flights via France, which were first mentioned Thursday in the New York Times and Britain's Guardian newspaper.



Le Figaro said the first flight identified took place on March 31, 2002. The Learjet private plane stopped in the northwestern town of Brest on its way from Iceland to Turkey, with a planned stop in Rome, the newspaper said.



Authorities at the airport told the Figaro that the crew had indicated it was alone on board the aircraft, it added.



The second flight stopped over near Paris on July 20, 2005, arriving from Norway, Le Figaro said, quoting as its source the Norwegian newspaper Ny Tid. This airplane, a Gulfstream III jet, had landed six times at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, it added.



Several European governments have launched investigations into whether covert CIA flights were used in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, to transfer Islamist suspects to third countries where they could be interrogated beyond the reach of international law.

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "You keep bringing this up but the reality is that you support such an approach, at least based on your past posts."



The character of a person can be partly determined by how closely they practice what they preach. I was referring to you (plural)...not me. You (singular) speak about how important due process is, but are quite quick to judge without any evidence in this matter. It's a double-standard.





NRK - "What do you think detaining 'enemy combatants' indefinitely without access to counsel and void of charges mean? It seems to be pretty clear that it means 'guilty until proven innocent'."



From my point of view, it's war...and in times of war, that's the way it is. Civil rights apply to civilians...not combatants. True, I think we (globally) need to come up with a set of rules governing terrorists and how they're handled, but until europe (and others) get off their collective tokus' and take a stand against it, this is not going to happen...at least not on the global level it should. America can set into place all the new policy it wants concerning this...but as long as terrorists are harbored in other countries it's going to be a long difficult road. We need a unified global stand on terrorism...not the petty squabbling and denial the likes of which we've been getting out of europe lately. Dhimmitude reigns over there, for now. Let's hope it doesn't stay that way. Mike.





Deb - Methinks you need to go find it and put it back...there'll be no sitting down until you do!





Mike - So?

Edited by: DreamTone7  at: 12/2/05 21:45

[NRKofOver]

Quote:

---

You (singular) speak about how important due process is, but are quite quick to judge without any evidence in this matter.

---

If you take a look at my posts, I have not said once that I know for sure the CIA is engaging in illegal or unethical activity with regards to secret prisons. I have said a lot of 'ifs' - if this happening then . . ..



And most importantly, the CIA and the government need to come clean with all of this information. IF anyone in our government is involved in such behavior then it must be stopped immediately. Because such behavior is wrong.



And I feel the exact same way about due process for 'enemy combatants'. You say that in a 'war' then we can alter the rules. This is a neverending, perpetual, ongoing, infinite war that cannot be won. If rules are not established that allow for oversight and accountability of those in charge and rules established for the individual to defend him/herself from perpetual persecution, then we have sunk as low as we can as a nation. This war will never end because people who want to maintain power must always have bogeymen. If we run out of foreign terrorists, I hope that American citizens don't become the next 'enemy combatants' that don't have any rights and who's to say it hasn't occurred already, seeing as how there is no accountability and someone can just disappear without having access to family or counsel?



So for me, my due process is intact. I believe in allowing the CIA to defend themselves. To come clean with the information they have and show that they wouldn't do such horrible things. But I also believe that 'enemy combatants' should have the same right to show that they haven't done the horrible things they've been accused of. Condi Rice just said the other day that 'enemy combatants' don't have to committ a crime to be detained. What does that mean? That anyone perceived as a potential threat can be rounded up and locked away? Is that right? I don't think so.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "You say that in a 'war' then we can alter the rules."



No. I say that in war, the rules are different. I also say that you (and others) have a tendency to put words in my mouth that I've never said. I don't pidgeon-hole that easily, and will continue to call you on it.





NRK - "Condi Rice just said the other day that 'enemy combatants' don't have to committ a crime to be detained. What does that mean?"



I'm not sure what she meant, but I think that she is alluding to the fact that (as I have been saying) the rules regarding enemy combatants are different. War is not a crime tried in a civilian court...neither should be combatants. There are a separate set of rules governing this. But terrorists present a need to come up with a new set of rules because they don't fit the mold of International rules concerning war. But until we have some international concurrence on a need for this different set of rules concerning terrorists, we won't ever have a concensus, or the governing laws. Until europe (at least) gets its act together concerning this, we'll never get international concurrence. We all have to agree that there is a need before we can ALL get to work on drawing up the laws.

[NRKofOver]

We're the ones who are rounding up 'terrorists' so let's set strong guidelines now that others can agree to later if they need to.



It's a lame excuse to say we can't utilize strong ethical guidelines in the treatment of a new kind of prisoner because we don't have an international consensus. As of right now, the consensus is pretty clear, what we're doing isn't the right way to go about it.



Let us take the lead, we are the lead in the WAR ON TERROR, so let the US decide what humane and acceptable treatment is for this new class of prisoners. It's not that hard, we can start by utilizing our Constitution. Due process and all.



I can't imagine how that would undermine our goals to diminish the threat of terrorism.

My music for the disenchanted masses

[DreamTone7]

NRK - "It's a lame excuse to say we can't utilize strong ethical guidelines in the treatment of a new kind of prisoner because we don't have an international consensus."



OK...once again putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. (When are you going to start being a little more careful about this?)



I didn't say we can't...I said in order to be truly effective it is what we must ALL (globally) do. We are making US policy on this now...but until it comes out we are in a grey area. I would not use the Contstitution as it does not apply to non-citizens...though it could be used as something of a guideline. I also don't want these terrorists afforded the same rights as US civilians...they are combatants, and should be treated as such. Dangerous criminals are held here in this country when it is reasonable to believe (ie, a certain amount of evidence) they are guilty. So until a determination is made, I don't have a problem with folks being held as long as there is sufficient reason to believe they may be guilty of being terrorists. How much, and what kind of evidence is sufficient is the real question.



I would also note that combatants out of uniform are considered spies and, during times of war, are subject to execution. I have no problem with terrorists found to be guilty being executed. I have also yet to hear of a terrorist held by us being executed. The media-stink would be all over that one, I'm sure.

[NRKofOver]

I just want guidelines. As an American I want my country and my elected representatives, from the President on down, to make good decisions, to establish ethical and humane guidelines, regardless of what the rest of the world does.



The fact that none exist for this particular situation is not a reason to avoid the responsibility of behaving well beyond what anyone else would do.



I don't care if in the next ten years Europeans decide that random kidnappings and executions are appropriate in this particular kind of war, they are not obligated to adhere to anything that we decide to do, but I believe that we have an ability to establish an amazing set of standards that others feel they have to live up to. I still think America is great, let us truly be great and start by eliminating secret prisons and detaining people without access to family or lawyers. Let's just start there and we'll see where it takes us after that, but that seems a minimum to me of decent human behavior.



Do you disagree?

My music for the disenchanted masses

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

I would not use the Contstitution as it does not apply to non-citizens

---

Actually, it does.