Bush says operates secret prisons

[Evo]

are you implying that the swedes:

"Imprisonment/tourturing/killing (jews) on behalf of the nazis"

No, I read the part

for the nazis, i would like to highlight the lack of actual imprisonment/tourturing/killing on behalf of the nazis since this would be a good deal more shocking.

but misrerad it was in reference to Sweden.

 

[Evo]

Just to point out: This has nothing to do with Sweden...(As I'm sure Evo's already aware of. Just found it confusing to cite something about Switzerland in a post about Sweden.)

You're correct that should have said "Switzerland, I will correct"

Oooops, apologies to all, I started with a post on Sweden and end up accidently mixing a bunch of Swiss stuff into it, hey they all look alike.

 

[slugcountry]

iv herd of usa's support of groups that tourture and training in tourture methods but iv never heard of cia or military or even private agents doing the actual tourturing outside of warzones
again, iv herd of support for anti-communist groups in these areas but not of the cia agents doing the dirty work. its one thing to supply money, tools and advise but its different to have americans do the tourturing themselves.

Once again I would ask you to do some real RESEARCH into the subject rather than relying on what you hear in a forum.

The practice of exporting prisoners so that representatives of other countries can conduct interrogations (in the presence of US agents no less) that would otherwise be illegal is not only commonplace but LONG standing.

 

[slugcountry]

You are correct, however, in that we are not "good". I'll be the first to admit, the hatred these people feel for us is, in part, our own fault. This is nothing more than the culmination of half a century of failed foreign policy.

Not in part, but in entirety, for the imperialistic foreign policy of the last two HUNDRED years.

The US is hated around the world because it has systematically put down popular revolts and installed dictators all throughout S. America as well as the M. East.

The US CIA waged a then secret war in Cambodia concurrent with the Vietnam war (and let's not forget that it was the US that instigated the war with Vietnam on false terms in the first place - and is now embroiled in a guerilla war with Iraq, on false terms).

The US armed and empowered Saddam in the first place. The US created the Iran-Contra scandal, and went on to put those weapons in the hands of death squads, who were ordered to kill civilians in an attempt to create FEAR among the populace to overthrow the government of a sovereign and democratic country - a tactic that was handed down from the School of the Americas.

Just a few, of the vast number reasons, that the US is hated.

 

[EL]

I started with a post on Sweden and end up accidently mixing a bunch of Swiss stuff into it, hey they all look alike.

You're in "good"( ) company with Bush (and I'll guess also the majority of all americans), who also mixes us up all the time. I desperately try to defeat this Swede-Swiss confusion whenever I see it, although sometimes it could be useful: When we were knocked out pretty early of the world cup in football this summer some people insisted it didn't really matter since Switzerland was still going strong, and nobody really knows the difference anyway...

 

[devil-fire]

Once again I would ask you to do some real RESEARCH into the subject rather than relying on what you hear in a forum.

The practice of exporting prisoners so that representatives of other countries can conduct interrogations (in the presence of US agents no less) that would otherwise be illegal is not only commonplace but LONG standing.

are there any hints you could give me as to when/where these have been happening?

 

[edward]

are there any hints you could give me as to when/where these have been happening?

You must be kidding. You are asking for the locations of secret prisons.

On an even more bizarre note:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Many CIA officers involved in questioning war-on-terror detainees have signed up for a government-reimbursed insurance plan that would pay their legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, a newspaper has reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060911/pl_afp/usattacksjustice

 

[Yonoz]

On an even more bizarre note:

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Many CIA officers involved in questioning war-on-terror detainees have signed up for a government-reimbursed insurance plan that would pay their legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, a newspaper has reported.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060911/pl_afp/usattacksjustice

Why is this bizarre?

 

[Anttech]

Because it is *almost* like saying:

We know we are 'miss'using our powers to interrogate 'suspects' without enough evidence. In the US, you *used* to not be allowed to picked up by a cop/agent for looking funny and then get interrogated over illegal plots. You used to have accumulated enough evidence first to warrant the interrogation. But now with then Neocons in power, it seems that is just by the by now.

 

[ptabor]

in response to slug country:
Yes, of course the US has interfered in foreign policy over the years. Yes, of course, most times this has not been for the better. By the way, our involvement in Vietnam started shortly after WW2, at the behest of the French, who were having difficulty maintaining their imperial control on the nation.

These actions, however, are the responsibility of our government. These actions were not committed by those who have been killed in terrorist attacks. If those that have issue with our government were to come here and murder our congressmen and our administration, this could be construed as a legitimate response to our interference.

It seems to me you are attempting to justify the actions of these people by the actions of our government. Ok, fine. By your logic, all jews please go out and murder the nearest german family. All native americans, please find your nearest white man and remove his scalp. Yeah, makes PERFECT sense.

In response to anttech,

It's probably the case that Al Qaeda does not have thousands of members. That's not a problem for my argument, as there are multiple terrorist groups in multiple nations. Of course, none of these organizations are brave enough to post a roster on the internet, so an exact count of their numbers is not possible.

By the volume of violence in iraq, the numbers of those dedicated to jihad must be high. Some may argue that these terrorists were bred by our invasion of iraq, but I'm calling bunk on that. I think it's more likely the case that iraq provided an excuse for people otherwise inclined to religious violence. Sort of like 9/11 being Bush's excuse for invading iraq.

Some may also argue that many of those that are waging war against our soldiers there are members of saddam's old regime. This may be the case, but this doesn't disqualify them as terrorists. Regardless of what you think of the US lead invasion, Saddam Hussein WAS a brutal dictator who murdered and tortured his own people. I see no reason to split hairs: terrorizing your own citizens is just as awful as terrorizing citizens of foreign nations.

 

[Yonoz]

Because it is *almost* like saying:

We know we are 'miss'using our powers to interrogate 'suspects' without enough evidence.

But it is not saying that. What it is saying is that those people did their job for the government and the government is taking responsibility for their actions and does not leave them out in the cold.

In the US, you *used* to not be allowed to picked up by a cop/agent for looking funny and then get interrogated over illegal plots. You used to have accumulated enough evidence first to warrant the interrogation. But now with then Neocons in power, it seems that is just by the by now.

I'm less familiar with US laws but I believe it has always been legal to arrest someone without evidence with special authorization by an elected official. Many states have such laws.

 

[Anttech]

By the volume of violence in iraq, the numbers of those dedicated to jihad must be high. Some may argue that these terrorists were bred by our invasion of iraq, but I'm calling bunk on that. I think it's more likely the case that iraq provided an excuse for people otherwise inclined to religious violence. Sort of like 9/11 being Bush's excuse for invading iraq.

Some may also argue that many of those that are waging war against our soldiers there are members of saddam's old regime. This may be the case, but this doesn't disqualify them as terrorists. Regardless of what you think of the US lead invasion, Saddam Hussein WAS a brutal dictator who murdered and tortured his own people. I see no reason to split hairs: terrorizing your own citizens is just as awful as terrorizing citizens of foreign nations.

Its very *funny* that you are attempting to take the moral high ground. Our Army is doing a sterling job killing all those Iraqis. But those terrorist are evil to the core

 

[ptabor]

Since you're so big on courts and trials, you have no right to say anything about our soldiers killing iraqi citizens. None of our soldiers have been tried in a court of law and been found to be guilty. Of course, they've been tried in the court of the media and public opinion, where there is usually only one verdict: guilty.

Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. If you're going to insist on a trial for those at guantanamo bay, then you must accord the same luxury to our soldiers abroad.

As to the moral high ground in war... It is my personal belief there is no such thing. To me it seems utterly and completely ridiculous to outlaw the use of certain weapons and tactics. Dying is dying, and it's going to suck no matter how it happens. I see no difference if it's with a flamethrower, a round from an M16 in the gut, or by poisonous gas.

If you're going to wage war, you should do it to win. This means killing your enemy at every opportunity (not pausing because they're in a cemetary) with all weapons at your disposal. This means torturing prisoners to obtain information. We didn't win WW2 by adhering to the moral high ground, we won it by bombing the daylights out of cities, such as Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. If you're going to wage war by being humane, you're just going to prolong the conflict and cost more lives.

 

[Anttech]

As to the moral high ground in war... It is my personal belief there is no such thing. To me it seems utterly and completely ridiculous to outlaw the use of certain weapons and tactics. Dying is dying, and it's going to suck no matter how it happens. I see no difference if it's with a flamethrower, a round from an M16 in the gut, or by poisonous gas.

If you're going to wage war, you should do it to win. This means killing your enemy at every opportunity (not pausing because they're in a cemetary) with all weapons at your disposal. This means torturing prisoners to obtain information. We didn't win WW2 by adhering to the moral high ground, we won it by bombing the daylights out of cities, such as Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. If you're going to wage war by being humane, you're just going to prolong the conflict and cost more lives.

Spoken like a true extremest. So you don't condemn the Twin tower attack, it was just an extension of the 'War' It was extremely efficient too, killing 10,000 at once, I suppose you appreciate that efficiency do you?

Off course you dont! Without morals and rules we are nothing but the evil the neocons like to project onto the current *great enemy*

Anyway its ignorant of you to assert that *you* won the 2nd world war by "bombing the daylights out of cities, such as Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima." The whole nuclear bomb episode and carpet bombing of German towns was only 1 factor in the whole ww2 matrix. The Russians *actually* were far more influential in the European theatre than the Americans. Yes you helped as did many other nations. Anyway this is off topic

 

[edward]

Why is this bizarre?

You do realize I would imagine that under the American legal system , even a CIA agent can be sued in a court of law for commiting acts which are in violation of predetermined standards. Water boarding is a good example of this.

The Bush administration is hiding their involvement in this situation by claiming; "This information is classified and must remain classified."

Individual CIA agents who could be sued by someone who feels that they have been mistreated do not have any protection from liability damages which may be awarded in this situation.

This is the first time ever that the Ameican govenment has supplied funding to allow CIA agents to purchase insurance policies that will cover any liability those agents may have incurred while following possibly illegal government orders.

The Bush administration could simply grant the agents amnesty against any such liability lawsuits. But that could pose a risk of political backlash because it would be an admission by the administration that prisoners were subjected to either illegal procedures or interrogation.

In essence the administration has given the CIA agents liability coverage for their actions by using a more bizarre secretive method.

 

[Yonoz]

You do realize I would imagine that under the American legal system , even a CIA agent can be sued in a court of law for commiting acts which are in violation of predetermined standards. Water boarding is a good example of this.

Of course they can. That is why they are provided with legal defense by their bosses.

The Bush administration is hiding their involvement in this situation by claiming; "This information is classified and must remain classified."

That is irrelevant to the question. I asked why is it bizarre that the government is defending its agents in the courts?

Individual CIA agents who could be sued by someone who feels that they have been mistreated do not have any protection from liability damages which may be awarded in this situation.

Exactly. They do not have any special protection, no more than other professionals with insurance against negligence suits.

This is the first time ever that the Ameican govenment has supplied funding to allow CIA agents to purchase insurance policies that will cover any liability those agents may have incurred while following possibly illegal government orders.

How does that make it bizarre or undesirable?

The Bush administration could simply grant the agents amnesty against any such liability lawsuits. But that could pose a risk of political backlash because it would be an admission by the administration that prisoners were subjected to either illegal procedures or interrogation.

Can they really offer amnesty? Does Bush have that kind of power over the Judicial Branch? Are you saying it's bizarre because they could have done something else, that's less desirable?

In essence the administration has given the CIA agents liability coverage for their actions by using a more bizarre secretive method.

What is so secretive about it? It's simple liability coverage, the kind you can get for every other profession.

 

[Burnsys]

Well, the usa government asked our government to give "Total Inmunity" to americans troops stationed in my country. The same happened in paraguay, chile, peru, etc..

So what's the point in asking for total inmunity? it's obvious you are planing to do some bad things...

 

[slugcountry]

It seems to me you are attempting to justify the actions of these people by the actions of our government. Ok, fine. By your logic, all jews please go out and murder the nearest german family. All native americans, please find your nearest white man and remove his scalp. Yeah, makes PERFECT sense.

It seems to me you have completely misinterpreted my statement since I never even came close to implying what you suggest.

 

[edward]

Of course they can. That is why they are provided with legal defense by their bosses.

This has only been provided recently and is very controversial. These guys aren't exactly tupperware salesmen.

That is irrelevant to the question. I asked why is it bizarre that the government is defending its agents in the courts?

No it is not irrelevant. There is no short answer to your question. The answer to your question was my entire post.

Exactly. They do not have any special protection, no more than other professionals with insurance against negligence suits.

Historically, if they operated within the law, they needed no "special protection".

How does that make it bizarre or undesirable?

That was self explanitory in the USA. Perhaps not in your country.

Can they really offer amnesty? Does Bush have that kind of power over the Judicial Branch?

Yes he does. All he has to do is claim that the amnesty is to protect classified information.

Are you saying it's bizarre because they could have done something else, that's less desirable?

That "something else" would only have been less desirable from a stricly political point of view. Bush is having to cover his arse and the way it is being done is " BIZZARE" "SLICK" "DEVIOUS" "UNETHICAL" should I go on?

What is so secretive about it? It's simple liability coverage, the kind you can get for every other profession.

No, it is a special policy, it is not sold by the good hands guy at Allstate, or the American Association of Retired People. The policies are provided by a special agency and is/was being funded on the sly by the Bush administration when they could not get congress to change the law regarding approved interrogation methods.

CIA counterterrorism officers have signed up in growing numbers for a government-reimbursed, private insurance plan that would pay their civil judgments and legal expenses if they are sued or charged with criminal wrongdoing, according to current and former intelligence officials and others with knowledge of the program.

The new enrollments reflect heightened anxiety at the CIA that officers may be vulnerable to accusations they were involved in abuse, torture, human rights violations and other misconduct, including wrongdoing related to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. They worry that they will not have Justice Department representation in court or congressional inquiries, the officials said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091001286.html?sub=AR

 

[devil-fire]

You must be kidding. You are asking for the locations of secret prisons.

im asking for general information like a country or conflict and a 5 year window. iv been told its common knowledge that the usa has used illegal interrogations for a long time but i havnt heard any examples.

 

[Yonoz]

This has only been provided recently and is very controversial. These guys aren't exactly tupperware salesmen.

That's right, they're not. They could very easily be drawn into lawsuits. And there's a chance they'll do something they shouldn't. It doesn't matter - they're working for the government, and the government has to stand behind them, just as it should whether they're road repair men or CIA agents.

No it is not irrelevant. There is no short answer to your question. The answer to your question was my entire post.

It is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if it's an honest mistake or a conspiratorial cover-up, the government should take responsibility for its agents.

Historically, if they operated within the law, they needed no "special protection".

If people were perfect we wouldn't need lawyers.

That was self explanitory in the USA. Perhaps not in your country.

In my country the government stands behind its actions, for good and bad.

Yes he does. All he has to do is claim that the amnesty is to protect classified information.

Courts have access to classified information, they hold closed sessions in such cases. If a suit is filed, all evidence is subject to subpoena.

That "something else" would only have been less desirable from a stricly political point of view. Bush is having to cover his arse and the way it is being done is " BIZZARE" "SLICK" "DEVIOUS" "UNETHICAL" should I go on?

How is he covering his arse? By providing the agents with legal advice the government is taking responsibility for their allged offenses.

What is so secretive about it? It's simple liability coverage, the kind you can get for every other profession.

No, it is a special policy, it is not sold by the good hands guy at Allstate, or the American Association of Retired People. The policies are provided by a special agency and is/was being funded on the sly by the Bush administration when they could not get congress to change the law regarding approved interrogation methods.

How does that make it secretive?

 

[devil-fire]

As to the moral high ground in war... It is my personal belief there is no such thing. To me it seems utterly and completely ridiculous to outlaw the use of certain weapons and tactics. Dying is dying, and it's going to suck no matter how it happens. I see no difference if it's with a flamethrower, a round from an M16 in the gut, or by poisonous gas.

If you're going to wage war, you should do it to win. This means killing your enemy at every opportunity (not pausing because they're in a cemetary) with all weapons at your disposal. This means torturing prisoners to obtain information. We didn't win WW2 by adhering to the moral high ground, we won it by bombing the daylights out of cities, such as Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima. If you're going to wage war by being humane, you're just going to prolong the conflict and cost more lives.

the problem with weapons of mass distruction is they are not focused on enemy comantents. chemical weapons for example are highly effective for killing civilians but vary ineffective for killing soldiers (they put on the gas mask and a chem weapons suit they are issued and they are fine). so then the question becomes how effective are these sorts of weapons really? if they are just used to kill civilian populations then that isn't war, that is genocide. if there existed such a weapon that could kill every soldier of the opposing army consistantly, although slowly, this weapon would not be considered illegal. this is because a dead soldier is a dead soldier so long as he/she was a combatent at the time ie. did not surrender before being killed.

as said above, this sort of way to wage war is the whole basis of the current war on terror and why it is deemed important for the terrorists to lose. if al-qaeda executed another mass killing on the continental usa and suddenly bush says "ok, you got us. just don't terrorize us any more and we'll do what you say" it would make terrorisum a tremendously effective way to wage war and everyone who wants have their way with something would suddenly start their own terror plots. killing everyone assosiated with your enemy regardless of the assosiation is Not a legitimite way to wage war because people consider it unacceptable and will fight harder because of it.

as for the idea of "leave any humanity at the door while you go to war. kill everyone who might be an enemy, or might help the enemy, or might be of value to the enemy or might one day help or become the enemy because otherwise you might kill someone you don't have to" just sounds either short sighted or insane to me.

 

[edward]

That's right, they're not. They could very easily be drawn into lawsuits. And there's a chance they'll do something they shouldn't. It doesn't matter - they're working for the government, and the government has to stand behind them, just as it should whether they're road repair men or CIA agents.
It is irrelevant because it doesn't matter if it's an honest mistake or a conspiratorial cover-up, the government should take responsibility for its agents.

I agree with this. The government should stand behind the agents regardless.

If people were perfect we wouldn't need lawyers.

LOL That is so true.

In my country the government stands behind its actions, for good and bad.

This is the crux of the situation. Our CIA agents are having a problem because they know that if The Department of Justice were to stand behind them it would be an admission that the Administration did allow illegal actions to happen. They realize that neither the DOJ nor the Administration is likely to stand behind them. To do so would be a political disaster for the Bush administration. So the agents buy the policies.

Courts have access to classified information, they hold closed sessions in such cases. If a suit is filed, all evidence is subject to subpoena

They are supposed to do that here but the Bush administration has sucessfully avoided any court actions by claiming that the revelation of classified documents would hinder national defense. And they do it no matter how trivial the situation. This tactic has been used to avoid having to share documents with the Senate Intelligence Committee. This has been the most secretive administration this nation has ever experienced.

How is he covering his arse? By providing the agents with legal advice the government is taking responsibility for their allged offenses.
How does that make it secretive?

He is covering his arse politically by keeping out of direct contact with the agents. The administration has denied repeatedly that any illegal events ever occured. The agents are reimbursed for the cost of the policies by the federal government using an as yet undisclosed method. No advise is given to anyone by the govenment. The agents most likely will be assisted by the attorneys provided by the policy provider.

In short, it leaves the administration out of the picture period. Yet the taxpayers are the ones who are actually paying for the liability policies.


This situation only came to light recently when former and current CIA came forward. I would imagine that the comapny who sells the policies helped make the situation known to drum up business.

Like most situations in the USA this is more of a political football than anything. At this point we have dug ourselves into a hole and the best thing to do at this point would be to quit digging.

A NPR take on the situation:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052915

 

[Yonoz]

This is the crux of the situation. Our CIA agents are having a problem because they know that if The Department of Justice were to stand behind them it would be an admission that the Administration did allow illegal actions to happen. They realize that neither the DOJ nor the Administration is likely to stand behind them. To do so would be a political disaster for the Bush administration. So the agents buy the policies.

So in your opinion the policy doesn't suffice? You expect Bush to strengthen his administration's ties to the CIA?

They are supposed to do that here but the Bush administration has sucessfully avoided any court actions by claiming that the revelation of classified documents would hinder national defense. And they do it no matter how trivial the situation. This tactic has been used to avoid having to share documents with the Senate Intelligence Committee. This has been the most secretive administration this nation has ever experienced.

Can you present a source for this please? I would like to study it, thankyou. You're talking about the Senate, I was looking for example of a court being denied evidence on the grounds of national defense.

He is covering his arse politically by keeping out of direct contact with the agents. The administration has denied repeatedly that any illegal events ever occured. The agents are reimbursed for the cost of the policies by the federal government using an as yet undisclosed method. No advise is given to anyone by the govenment. The agents most likely will be assisted by the attorneys provided by the policy provider.

But I thought this was the first such arrangement between the administration and the CIA. If he wanted to cover his arse, why is did he do this in the first place, why not stick to the status-quo?

In short, it leaves the administration out of the picture period. Yet the taxpayers are the ones who are actually paying for the liability policies.

Can the administration really stay out of the picture when CIA agents are being sued? Do you not trust your justice system? There's more to a verdict than guilty / not guilty.

This situation only came to light recently when former and current CIA came forward. I would imagine that the comapny who sells the policies helped make the situation known to drum up business.

Well thank god for private enterprise and free press then eh?

Like most situations in the USA this is more of a political football than anything.

I don't think it's any different elsewhere.

At this point we have dug ourselves into a hole and the best thing to do at this point would be to quit digging.

Well I guess that's just a matter of opinion - and off topic, at that.
BTW from the NPR interview it seems this has been around since even before Bush Sr.

 

[edward]

So in your opinion the policy doesn't suffice? You expect Bush to strengthen his administration's ties to the CIA?

It would be best if the administration were to operate within the law even if that means having to change the law if Congress will allow it.

Can you present a source for this please? I would like to study it, thankyou.

http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc...217.pdf#search="Maher Arar Lawsuit dismissed"
The above case involves a Canadian citizen. There is a more recent case below that is still in the courts.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/07/judge_wont_dismiss_eavesdropping_suit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News+%2F+Nation

In the more recent case a federal judge refused to dismiss the case on the basis of the "national security issue". This case is still active.

You're talking about the Senate, I was looking for example of a court being denied evidence on the grounds of national defense.

neither of the above cases involve the senate.

snip
Can the administration really stay out of the picture when CIA agents are being sued? Do you not trust your justice system? There's more to a verdict than guilty / not guilty.

Apparently the CIA agents did not believe that they were innocent and/or they did not trust the justice system or the Administration. They bought the policies.

snip:
BTW from the NPR interview it seems this has been around since even before Bush Sr.

The policies were originally meant to be sold to FBI agents. The thing that is new is that all CIA agents are now being advised to buy them. More recently the govenment has started paying for them for the CIA.

To much of the American public there is an appearance that the CIA and the administration had something to hide. There was something to hide, they were operating outside of the law.

 

[Yonoz]

http://www.justicescholars.org/pegc...217.pdf#search="Maher Arar Lawsuit dismissed"
The above case involves a Canadian citizen. There is a more recent case below that is still in the courts.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/07/judge_wont_dismiss_eavesdropping_suit/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News+%2F+Nation

In the more recent case a federal judge refused to dismiss the case on the basis of the "national security issue". This case is still active.

Those look like good old fair trials. I don't see any example of this:

They are supposed to do that here but the Bush administration has sucessfully avoided any court actions by claiming that the revelation of classified documents would hinder national defense.

Nor this:

The Bush administration could simply grant the agents amnesty against any such liability lawsuits.
...All he has to do is claim that the amnesty is to protect classified information.

Apparently the CIA agents did not believe that they were innocent and/or they did not trust the justice system or the Administration. They bought the policies.

On the contrary, I think it shows they recognize they are not above the law. Anyway, it goes to show the administration cannot stay out of the picture. Rather, by paying the legal costs it takes responsibility for its agents.

The policies were originally meant to be sold to FBI agents. The thing that is new is that all CIA agents are now being advised to buy them. More recently the govenment has started paying for them for the CIA.

The Iran-Contras scandal involved the CIA. The interview mentions the policies are a result of that scandal.

To much of the American public there is an appearance that the CIA and the administration had something to hide. There was something to hide, they were operating outside of the law.

As tragic as that may be, it does not mean that agents that have broken the law should be abandoned by the nation they were serving.

 

[Anttech]

On the contrary, I think it shows they recognize they are not above the law. Anyway, it goes to show the administration cannot stay out of the picture. Rather, by paying the legal costs it takes responsibility for its agents.

Actually its more like it is accepting its actions are irresponsible, and taking measure to ensure the monetary impact is minimised. No matter how you spin it, its not reassuring to the general public that the government believes it is acting within the law.

 

[Yonoz]

Actually its more like it is accepting its actions are irresponsible, and taking measure to ensure the monetary impact is minimised. No matter how you spin it, its not reassuring to the general public that the government believes it is acting within the law.

Does defending oneself in court immediately imply guilt?
Terrorists use your media against you, do you think they won't use your courts?

 

[Anttech]

Does defending oneself in court immediately imply guilt?

Do you really need me to answer that question?

Terrorists use your media against you, do you think they won't use your courts?

I don't follow, are you implying that "terrorists" have inflitrated the media and now the courts?



It just gets better and better!

No thanks Yonzo, I would prefer to know my government was acting within the law, not saving up its money and funds so it can afford to not. As you may or may not have noticed, I don't subscribe to the "terrorists are around every corner ready to blow me up, and we must weed out this evil" type neocon crap.

 

[Yonoz]

Do you really need me to answer that question?

I wouldn't be asking it if I needn't.

I don't follow, are you implying that "terrorists" have inflitrated the media and now the courts?

No, I'm saying terrorist sympathisers in the states will be happy to exercise their legal right to file suit against CIA personnel. It's done regularly to Israeli officials and security forces personnel.

No thanks Yonzo, I would prefer to know my government was acting within the law, not saving up its money and funds so it can afford to not. As you may or may not have noticed, I don't subscribe to the "terrorists are around every corner ready to blow me up, and we must weed out this evil" type neocon crap.

Well allow me to welcome you to the real world, in which there is a real need for CIAs and Mossads, as well as courts. There are real people in the CIA who need make really tough real decisions. Being real people, they can sometimes make real mistakes. There are real people in this real world who do not like what the CIA is doing - but in the real world, this cannot pass as a real world judgement - that is up to what we call the real world Justice System. In this real world Justice System, any real person can file suit, and real world guilt is only established by a real world ruling of guilty / not guilty. In the real world everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Anttech]

No, I'm saying terrorist sympathisers in the states will be happy to exercise their legal right to file suit against CIA personnel. It's done regularly to Israeli officials and security forces personnel.

And as long as those CIA personnel are acting with the law there won't be any problem.

I wouldn't be asking it if I needn't.

ok then, NO IT DOESNT. I presumed it was an rhetorical question, I am not familiar with the Israeli court system, but here in Europe we are innocent till proven guilty.
Edit: Incidently if you needed me to explain that why are you then going on to explain your real world scenario where you answer your own question? Please don't tell me you were attempting to remind me of that fact

Well allow me to welcome you to the real world, in which there is a real need for CIAs and Mossads, as well as courts. There are real people in the CIA who need make really tough real decisions. Being real people, they can sometimes make real mistakes. There are real people in this real world who do not like what the CIA is doing - but in the real world, this cannot pass as a real world judgement - that is up to what we call the real world Justice System. In this real world Justice System, any real person can file suit, and real world guilt is only established by a real world ruling of guilty / not guilty. In the real world everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

Exactly, so unless you are willingly going to break the law, there is no need for this insurance policy. What type of accidents do you suppose a CIA operative will make?

Whoops I accidentally tourtured that person because he looked like a terrorist

 

[Yonoz]

And as long as those CIA personnel are acting with the law there won't be any problem.

I thought we cleared up this "real world" stuff.

ok then, NO IT DOESNT. I presumed it was an rhetorical question, I am not familiar with the Israeli court system, but here in Europe we are innocent till proven guilty.
Edit: Incidently if you needed me to explain that why are you then going on to explain your real world scenario where you answer your own question? Please don't tell me you were attempting to remind me of that fact

I wanted to know what you think. I need to know whether this is another point I need to clarify before moving on.

Exactly, so unless you are willingly going to break the law, there is no need for this insurance policy. What type of accidents do you suppose a CIA operative will make?

Whoops I accidentally tourtured that person because he looked like a terrorist

Obviously, you're not a golfer. The law is not a clear-cut "torture this person, don't torture this person", and CIA operatives sometimes have very little information to work upon, with grave consequences for their actions or inactions. It all seems so easy to you now, here on PF, but in real life real men and women with dead-real jobs sometimes make real tough decisions - and they make real mistakes. It doesn't mean they're evil, it doesn't mean they're conspirators that should be hung from the tallest tree, and in my opinion it does not mean they should be left out by the government to fend for themselves.

 

[Anttech]

Obviously, you're not a golfer. The law is not a clear-cut "torture this person, don't torture this person", and CIA operatives sometimes have very little information to work upon, with grave consequences for their actions or inactions. It all seems so easy to you now, here on PF, but in real life real men and women with dead-real jobs sometimes make real tough decisions - and they make real mistakes. It doesn't mean they're evil, it doesn't mean they're conspirators that should be hung from the tallest tree, and in my opinion it does not mean they should be left out by the government to fend for themselves.

What has golf got to do with anything? (And I have played golf for many years anyway)

I totally disagree with your analysis, because I morally disagree with your stance. There is a reason why these checks and balances are there, they are to *protect* innocent people from being arrested and submitted to degrading and *ILLEGAL* acts. Sorry but if a Secret service operative has very little information, he has to get more before arresting and harassing someone! LAW-101 You can't give these people a carte-blanch to do as they please, which you with you real-life analysis seem to favour.

 

[Yonoz]

What has golf got to do with anything? (And I have played golf for many years anyway)

It's a quote from a movie.

I totally disagree with your analysis, because I morally disagree with your stance. There is a reason why these checks and balances are there, they are to *protect* innocent people from being arrested and submitted to degrading and *ILLEGAL* acts.

The checks and balances are all there. They still go to court, only they don't have to fund an attorney with a government salary. So it actually gives the little guys the ability to defend themselves better and narrows the gaps between them and their bosses - who can probably afford better counsel. No checks nor balances have been altered.

Sorry but if a Secret service operative has very little information, he has to get more before arresting and harassing someone!

There are circumstances in which you are forced to make a decision upon very little information. Tell me, what is the most responsible task you've been assigned?

LAW-101 You can't give these people a carte-blanch to do as they please, which you with you real-life analysis seem to favour.

Did I or anyone else for that matter say anything about giving anyone a carte-blanch? They go to court just like every other person does.

 

[Anttech]

The checks and balances are all there. They still go to court, only they don't have to fund an attorney with a government salary. So it actually gives the little guys the ability to defend themselves better and narrows the gaps between them and their bosses - who can probably afford better counsel. No checks nor balances have been altered.

OK I am trying to see this from your point of view, but I keep coming back to the fact that if they are doing no wrong they shouldn't need this insurance. However I suppose they can plead that they are just following orders, I have no idea about the legal ramifications of that stance are, however if they are doing no wrong, the people suing will have to pick up the tab regardless when the case is thrown out of court. It seems fishy to me, if they really were doing no wrong they would have nothing to worry about. If they are then this insurance probably is a good idea.

There are circumstances in which you are forced to make a decision upon very little information. Tell me, what is the most responsible task you've been assigned?

This is irrelevant to the argument, information is a must in making decisions in these circumstances. If you don't have any, you don't just grab someone who you might think is perhaps in 5 years going to do something wrong and then throw them in some secret jail.

Did I or anyone else for that matter say anything about giving anyone a carte-blanch? They go to court just like every other person does.

You didnt say it, but it seems to me that is what is being implied here--> your real life rant about real people making tough decisions etc etc, reminds me of A Few Good Men