March 12th, 2008, 06:12 PM
Extraordinary Rendition
Why is it that Bush takes all the heat for this?
Extraordinary Rendition
Quote:
Link
Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."
The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."
The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: "If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear -- never to see them again -- you send them to Egypt."
Why is it that Bush takes all the heat for this?
March 12th, 2008, 06:45 PM
Quote:
This type of thing should be phased out, not ramped up. Taking society closer to the stone age is not progress. He's taking the heat because he practically shoves it the worlds face that he wants the US to torture people, and more so than ever before. I don't think anyone ever felt the CIA was squeaky clean and the odd shenanigan wasn't going on, but when the President makes increasing torture one of his few Presidential accomplishments, something doesn't add up and people need to speak up. There is no way the West will have any credibility putting pressure on human rights issues when the leadership makes human rights abuses public policy.
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically,
Genius
Posts: 821 
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 12th, 2008, 06:55 PM
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...arch&plindex=0
Quoting Kreskin
???
the odd shenanigan wasn't going on
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...arch&plindex=0
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,916 
Location: Edmonton AB
Location: Edmonton AB
March 12th, 2008, 07:09 PM
I can't hear the clip - but this shocks the hell out of me:
I can't hear the clip - but this shocks the hell out of me:
Quote:
I'm surprised this activity is only traced back to Clinton's term... I just assumed the big players were using these tactics for a very long time prior to that?
The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 12th, 2008, 08:42 PM
It doesn't and they were.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/us...entionism.html
This kind of activity isn't unique to the States.
It doesn't and they were.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/us...entionism.html
This kind of activity isn't unique to the States.
March 12th, 2008, 10:28 PM
Quoting MHz
And we wonder why entire societies join or support terrorist groups?
It doesn't and they were.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/us...entionism.html
This kind of activity isn't unique to the States.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/us...entionism.html
This kind of activity isn't unique to the States.
House Member
Posts: 4,494
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
March 12th, 2008, 11:19 PM
``Why is it that Bush takes all the heat for this? ``
I don't have the full answer but three things come to mind:
First, Congress was Republican and his approval of it may have been part of his endless acquiescence to the so called ''Contract With America''.
Second, it belies the myth that Clinton did nothing to stop terrorism.
We discussed this latter point ad infinitum previously. I have quoted chapter and verse from the 9/11 Commission Report which fully discredited all those right wing myths that alleged he did nothing.
Lastly, the article did not indicate to what extent the practice was abused (if at all) under Clinton. No numbers are given as to how many people were abused (again, if any). While it makes a convincing case that Clinton should have gotten some degree of blame for what is to me a violation of UN Conventions and international law, it does not reveal why he should be blamed for abuses arising from the Bush administration. But I do fault him for his failure to condemn the practice. Because of that, he certainly deserves part of the blame for it as you rightfully suggest.
``Why is it that Bush takes all the heat for this? ``
I don't have the full answer but three things come to mind:
First, Congress was Republican and his approval of it may have been part of his endless acquiescence to the so called ''Contract With America''.
Second, it belies the myth that Clinton did nothing to stop terrorism.
We discussed this latter point ad infinitum previously. I have quoted chapter and verse from the 9/11 Commission Report which fully discredited all those right wing myths that alleged he did nothing.
Lastly, the article did not indicate to what extent the practice was abused (if at all) under Clinton. No numbers are given as to how many people were abused (again, if any). While it makes a convincing case that Clinton should have gotten some degree of blame for what is to me a violation of UN Conventions and international law, it does not reveal why he should be blamed for abuses arising from the Bush administration. But I do fault him for his failure to condemn the practice. Because of that, he certainly deserves part of the blame for it as you rightfully suggest.
House Member
Posts: 3,145
Location: USA
Location: USA
March 13th, 2008, 05:18 PM
And First Nation faired better? The people Canadians up until the 1980's were refered to as the Indian Band. Are there not reservations there? Did the First Nation put themselves there? I am so sure that they just LOVED the polite Canadians as they populated their native land...so much more than those Blue Bellies (which in fact was a term given to Union troops by Southern soldiers during the Civil War...but who cares about facts.) When did First Nation Canadians get the right to vote in Federal Election...1960? That was 40 years after the US Granted that right.
How about the Canadian Residential School System and its ban on any indigenous cultural practices? So very VERY polite. The prohibition of First Nation ceremonies until the 1950's!
And First Nation faired better? The people Canadians up until the 1980's were refered to as the Indian Band. Are there not reservations there? Did the First Nation put themselves there? I am so sure that they just LOVED the polite Canadians as they populated their native land...so much more than those Blue Bellies (which in fact was a term given to Union troops by Southern soldiers during the Civil War...but who cares about facts.) When did First Nation Canadians get the right to vote in Federal Election...1960? That was 40 years after the US Granted that right.
How about the Canadian Residential School System and its ban on any indigenous cultural practices? So very VERY polite. The prohibition of First Nation ceremonies until the 1950's!
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 13th, 2008, 06:33 PM
I wasn't insinuating that Canada was not just as guilty. The traits shown by both countries in conquest situation have a common heritage, so why would it be any different. It was a reply to a post that was saying torture by the military was only a few decades old. Blue Bellies denotes military and not civilian right?
Quoting EagleSmack
The different Nations are still referred to as bands, and yes there are still reservations. Ironically some of them became very rich as the Gov just happened to put some of them right on top of larger oil/gas pockets. Even more will be if the courts ever let the cases come to a close.
And First Nation faired better? The people Canadians up until the 1980's were refered to as the Indian Band. Are there not reservations there? Did the First Nation put themselves there? I am so sure that they just LOVED the polite Canadians as they populated their native land...so much more than those Blue Bellies (which in fact was a term given to Union troops by Southern soldiers during the Civil War...but who cares about facts.) When did First Nation Canadians get the right to vote in Federal Election...1960? That was 40 years after the US Granted that right.
How about the Canadian Residential School System and its ban on any indigenous cultural practices? So very VERY polite. The prohibition of First Nation ceremonies until the 1950's!
How about the Canadian Residential School System and its ban on any indigenous cultural practices? So very VERY polite. The prohibition of First Nation ceremonies until the 1950's!
I wasn't insinuating that Canada was not just as guilty. The traits shown by both countries in conquest situation have a common heritage, so why would it be any different. It was a reply to a post that was saying torture by the military was only a few decades old. Blue Bellies denotes military and not civilian right?
House Member
Posts: 2,761
Location: California
Location: California
March 13th, 2008, 07:51 PM
Why does it matter who started it? That is such a childish answer to criticism and completely ignores the issue. It's the kind of thing a 5 year old says when they get into trouble from their mother ("But he did it first!").
The real questions are do you think this is right and should it continue?
Why does it matter who started it? That is such a childish answer to criticism and completely ignores the issue. It's the kind of thing a 5 year old says when they get into trouble from their mother ("But he did it first!").
The real questions are do you think this is right and should it continue?
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 13th, 2008, 08:58 PM
Why would you think torture comes under the 'realm' of it even matters who did it first?
That the Gov admits to it and have those little out of the way prisons should be enough to stop any bitching when your troops get strung up or dragged down the street.
I seem to recall a very big deal being made of Iran putting those British troops on TV, it at least showed they were in good health. All that the US or the UK went on and on and on about was their (international) rights being violated. How fuking two faced is that?
Why would you think torture comes under the 'realm' of it even matters who did it first?
That the Gov admits to it and have those little out of the way prisons should be enough to stop any bitching when your troops get strung up or dragged down the street.
I seem to recall a very big deal being made of Iran putting those British troops on TV, it at least showed they were in good health. All that the US or the UK went on and on and on about was their (international) rights being violated. How fuking two faced is that?
House Member
Posts: 3,145
Location: USA
Location: USA
March 14th, 2008, 09:15 AM
Native Americans (US Indians) didn't refer to the military as Blue Bellies. That was a nick name given to Union troops during the Civil War because of the blue uniforms. During the Indian Wars the US also had blue uniforms but were just called "white soldiers" or "white devils" by the Indians.
Quoting MHz
Well if I misunderstood your post than I apologize. From what I understood it to read was that you as a Canadian was pointing out the US in their harsh treatment of Native Americans here. I was just pointing out that they were treated just as harsh up there. The only difference was that Canada did not have the Indian Wars that we did. The wars weren't as fierce even though there was some resistance to Euro/Canadian expansion. That also is due to the fact that the First Nation in Canada really didn't put up a fight, or used armed resistance. But they were indeed granted reservations and moved when Canadians wanted that land. There were also orchrestated attempts at assimilation.
The different Nations are still referred to as bands, and yes there are still reservations. Ironically some of them became very rich as the Gov just happened to put some of them right on top of larger oil/gas pockets. Even more will be if the courts ever let the cases come to a close.
I wasn't insinuating that Canada was not just as guilty. The traits shown by both countries in conquest situation have a common heritage, so why would it be any different. It was a reply to a post that was saying torture by the military was only a few decades old. Blue Bellies denotes military and not civilian right?
I wasn't insinuating that Canada was not just as guilty. The traits shown by both countries in conquest situation have a common heritage, so why would it be any different. It was a reply to a post that was saying torture by the military was only a few decades old. Blue Bellies denotes military and not civilian right?
Native Americans (US Indians) didn't refer to the military as Blue Bellies. That was a nick name given to Union troops during the Civil War because of the blue uniforms. During the Indian Wars the US also had blue uniforms but were just called "white soldiers" or "white devils" by the Indians.
Genius
Posts: 821
Location: Red Deer AB
Location: Red Deer AB
March 14th, 2008, 10:07 AM
In our defense (that we can be just as bad), we might not have had wars to the same extent and we got (stole) the land through treaties, but we did break each and every single one we signed. Our resolve to keep it that way is still there today, only now it is to our shame.
I probably got blue bellies from a John Wayne movie. After seeing a village of slaughtered women and children there were probably a few other names mentioned also. When Canada reneged on a signed document the same names were probably used in that situation also.
Those 'granted reservations' was the least desirable land around, often a very long way way from where they were living naturally.
It wasn't like they got any king of generous deal, more likely take this deal or get slaughtered like you cousins to the south. The west may have been that last land gained but that harsh (smiley face when facing them, cursing them when they couldn't hear) treatment was there from when the first boatload landed.
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/story.html
About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City. There the terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the lunar surface. Among all the trucks and large vehicles were two large figures that were dressed in full lunar spacesuits. Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by other NASA personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son asked for him who the strange creatures were. The NASA people told them that they were just men that were getting ready to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts.
The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message, they asked his son to translate. His son would not.
Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate. Finally, with cash in hand someone translated the message,
"Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land."
In our defense (that we can be just as bad), we might not have had wars to the same extent and we got (stole) the land through treaties, but we did break each and every single one we signed. Our resolve to keep it that way is still there today, only now it is to our shame.
I probably got blue bellies from a John Wayne movie. After seeing a village of slaughtered women and children there were probably a few other names mentioned also. When Canada reneged on a signed document the same names were probably used in that situation also.
Those 'granted reservations' was the least desirable land around, often a very long way way from where they were living naturally.
It wasn't like they got any king of generous deal, more likely take this deal or get slaughtered like you cousins to the south. The west may have been that last land gained but that harsh (smiley face when facing them, cursing them when they couldn't hear) treatment was there from when the first boatload landed.
http://www.azteca.net/aztec/story.html
About 1966 or so, a NASA team doing work for the Apollo moon mission took the astronauts near Tuba City. There the terrain of the Navajo Reservation looks very much like the lunar surface. Among all the trucks and large vehicles were two large figures that were dressed in full lunar spacesuits. Nearby a Navajo sheep herder and his son were watching the strange creatures walk about, occasionally being tended by other NASA personnel. The two Navajo people were noticed and approached by the NASA personnel. Since the man did not know English, his son asked for him who the strange creatures were. The NASA people told them that they were just men that were getting ready to go to the moon. The man became very excited and asked if he could send a message to the moon with the astronauts.
The NASA personnel thought this was a great idea so they rustled up a tape recorder. After the man gave them his message, they asked his son to translate. His son would not.
Later, they tried a few more people on the reservation to translate and every person they asked would chuckle and then refuse to translate. Finally, with cash in hand someone translated the message,
"Watch out for these guys, they come to take your land."
