| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/15 |
| 2006/9/6-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44294 Activity:nil |
9/6 It's official: Bush confirms existence of secret CIA prisons:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm
\_ What's awesome is that the Gitmo "compromise" they are pushing
will force Congress to essentially choose between letting KSM go or
allowing evidence extracted via torture to be used in court.
See:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=36348 |
| 7/15 |
|
| news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm Printable version Bush admits to CIA secret prisons George W Bush Bush's policy on terror suspect detainees has been criticised President Bush has acknowledged the existence of secret CIA prisons and said 14 key terrorist suspects have now been sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The suspects, who include the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, have now been moved out of CIA custody and will face trial. Mr Bush said the CIA's interrogation programme had been "vital" in saving lives, but denied the use of torture. He said all suspects will be afforded protection under the Geneva Convention. KEY SUSPECTS Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (above left): Alleged mastermind of 9/11; believed to be the Number 3 al-Qaeda leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003 Abu Zubaydah: Alleged link between Osama Bin Laden and many al-Qaeda cells before his capture in Pakistan in 2002 Ramzi Binalshibh (above right): One of the alleged masterminds of 9/11 Hambali (Riduan Isamuddin): Alleged senior leader in Jemaah Islamiah (JI); Q&A: Bush's announcement In a televised address alongside families of those killed in the 11 September 2001 attacks, Mr Bush said there were now no terrorist suspects under the CIA programme. Mr Bush said he was making a limited disclosure of the CIA programme because interrogation of the men it held was now complete and because a US Supreme Court decision had stopped the use of military commissions for trials. He said the CIA programme had interrogated a small number of key figures suspected of involvement in 9/11, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 in Yemen and the 1998 attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Mr Bush spelled out how the questioning of detainee Abu Zubaydah had led to the capture of Ramzi Binalshibh, which in turn led to the detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Mr Bush said the CIA had used an "alternative set of procedures", agreed with the justice department, once suspects had stopped talking. He said the questioning methods had prevented attacks inside the US and saved US lives. "This programme has helped us to take potential mass murderers off the streets before they have a chance to kill," the president said. The CIA programme had caused some friction with European allies. Some EU lawmakers said the CIA carried out clandestine flights to transport terror suspects. Revised guidelines Mr Bush said he was asking Congress to authorise military commissions and once that was done "the men our intelligence officials believe orchestrated the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11 2001 can face justice". Guantanamo Bay detainee All detainees will now have Geneva Convention protection All suspects will now be treated under new guidelines issued by the Pentagon on Wednesday, which bring all military detainees under the protection of the Geneva Convention. The move marks a reversal in policy for the Pentagon, which previously argued that many detainees were unlawful combatants who did not qualify for such protections. The new guidelines forbid all torture, the use of dogs to intimidate prisoners, water boarding - the practice of submerging prisoners in water - any kind of sexual humiliation, and many other interrogation techniques. The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says that in one stroke the Pentagon is moving to defuse all criticism of the way it treats the people it has captured in its war against terrorism. The US administration has faced criticism from legal experts and human rights activists over the policy on detentions of terrorism suspects. Mr Bush also said he was asking Congress to pass urgent legislation to clarify the terms under which those fighting the war on terror could operate. He said the laws must make it explicit that US personnel were fulfilling their obligations under the Geneva Convention. Mr Bush said those questioning suspected terrorists must be able to use everything under the law to save US lives. |
| www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=36348 A few scattered, preliminary thoughts: The first, and most obvious, possibility is that it's a bargaining chip in the upcoming White House-Congressional negotiations over the scope of the revamped military tribunals. How this will impact the negotiations is entirely unclear, though John McCain, the crucial Hill figure in the debate, is already making positive noises. However, look deeper and not only is the White House not giving an inch in the debate, the KSM Shift of 2006 actually takes a mile. That's because, to be blunt, we have tortured the dickens (to use a Rumsfeldian locution) out of KSM. All Guantnamo detainees, according to the Supreme Court, have the right to at least some access to the US legal system. KSM, therefore, will pose an interesting test: Should his probable trial reflect the legal doctrine of the "fruit of the poisoned tree"--that is, will evidence obtained through torture be admissible in the military tribunals or not? McCain's Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 says "of course not!" but Bush indicated in his infamous "signing statement" that he thinks he has the right to torture whoever he pleases. Now Congress will face a very unpleasant question: Unless it rejiggers the military tribunals to bless torture/coercion, KSM and other Al Qaeda figures might in fact be set free by the courts. Is Bush so cynical as to force Congress into the odious position of either setting the stage for murderers to walk out of Gitmo or blessing torture? I'll have more on this in a forthcoming piece, but the CIA wants very, very badly to get out of the detention business. It's afraid that whatever administration follows Bush will prosecute operatives and officials for complying with illegal Bush administration policy. It may be that Bush and his aides see an opportunity to neutralize a whole bunch of threats at once. That would be kind of admirable if it weren't, you know, evil. respond I'm a "no" on the death penalty and think it is unconstitutional, but I also acknowledge, of certain individuals, that were I not opposed I'd have no issue with putting them to death, and to heck with whether it's uncomfortable or not. But the moral stakes here are huge, to wit, politicizing, not an issue or an act but a person, thereby playing with torture for gain, is as monstrously depraved a crime as any I can think of. I'm pondering that question, as I sense, morally, that a much graver line has been crossed than before, and something must be done about it now, not later. |