Secret Prisons

[dcentity2000]

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.

Source & Full Story - BBC News



Rich::

 

[Nebsky]

and??

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I listened to the speech today. A a Dem, I have to say that I agree with just about everything that he said. However, the bill that he is sending to Congress to vote on has been a long time coming. Both the House and Senate have been asking for Congressional oversight for the last five years, and thankfully, the Supreme Court, and possibly sinking approval ratings, forced the Administrations hand. I commend President Bush for giving the Constitution and common sense at try in putting the matter before Congress. Hopefully, after the new law is enacted, there will be no problem with the legality of the interrogation techniques and justice can be done for the many of the victims of 9/11, the USS Cole and embassy bombings worldwide.

 

[louie694]

I listened to the speech today. A a Dem, I have to say that I agree with just about everything that he said.

bravo!!

 

[crcormier]

Good. Why did it take 5 years?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Good. Why did it take 5 years?

A little hard core arm twisting by the Supreme Court never hurts!

You know the President hated putting that bill out there. It's a complete 180 from what he originally wanted.

 

[bsnyder]

He said all suspects will be afforded protection under the Geneva Convention

Not sure why anyone would rely on the BBC to regurgitate when they can read the speech in full themselves. I don't think the BBC is reporting this correctly.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Not sure why anyone would rely on the BBC to regurgitate when they can read the speech in full themselves. I don't think the BBC is reporting this correctly.

I believe that he did mention following Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in his speech. I thought he said he wants Congress to make it less vague. If not, it is mentioned in the new Defense Department policy directive.

 

[bsnyder]

I believe that he did mention following Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions in his speech. I thought he said he wants Congress to make it less vague. If not, it is mentioned in the new Defense Department policy directive.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-6.html

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-6.html

Thanks, Bet. Here it is:

Second, the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions, and has put in question the future of the CIA program. In its ruling on military commissions, the Court determined that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as "Common Article Three" applies to our war with al Qaeda. This article includes provisions that prohibit "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment." The problem is that these and other provisions of Common Article Three are vague and undefined, and each could be interpreted in different ways by American or foreign judges. And some believe our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act -- simply for doing their jobs in a thorough and professional way.

This is unacceptable. Our military and intelligence personnel go face to face with the world's most dangerous men every day. They have risked their lives to capture some of the most brutal terrorists on Earth. And they have worked day and night to find out what the terrorists know so we can stop new attacks. America owes our brave men and women some things in return. We owe them their thanks for saving lives and keeping America safe. And we owe them clear rules, so they can continue to do their jobs and protect our people.

So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions. Third, I'm asking that Congress make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Huh...I'm surprised this thread isn't more active. This news is pretty big, IMO.

 

[bsnyder]

Huh...I'm surprised this thread isn't more active. This news is pretty big, IMO.

I agree. But, I had to pick up DD and go to the grocery store. How dare real life interfer!

I'm picking up on this specifically:

Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I'm picking up on this specifically: <Bush quote>

Do you see it as he's saying that he doesn't intend comply with Article 3?

Seems to me, he wants (begrudgingly, IMO, based on what he has said in the past) our the new laws to be compliant with the Geneva Conventions.

 

[bsnyder]

Do you see it as he's saying that he doesn't intend comply with Article 3?

Seems to me, he wants (begrudgingly, IMO, based on what he has said in the past) our the new laws to be compliant with the Geneva Conventions.

I read it differently. And I could be mistaken.

When he talks about the news laws, I think he's specifically talking about the new law to be written on the military tribunals question. I read the sentence I quoted as saying that in the Administration's view, the DTA already passed by Congress fulfills our obligation with regard to the Geneva Convention, and that it wants Congress to confirm that as fact.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I read it differently. And I could be mistaken.

When he talks about the news laws, I think he's specifically talking about the new law to be written on the military tribunals question. I read the sentence I quoted as saying that in the Administration's view, the DTA already passed by Congress fulfills our obligation with regard to the Geneva Convention, and that it wants Congress to confirm that as fact.

I think you're mistaken. If you actually read the bill's intentions (you highlighted the link), it basically states that the President wants and intends to comply with the Geneva Convention and give terror suspects those same rights. It only asks that Congress make specific what acts it considers illegal, as Article 3 is vague as it stands now.

 

[bsnyder]

Well, it will be interesting to see if Congress can come up with something all lawmakers can agree on.

I'd like to be hopeful....

 

[Saxsoon]

I guess I am glad that Bush has admitted to this and is seeking congressional oversight on the matter. (that is the jist of it right?)


Edited to add: The secret prisons. Would I be correct in saying that?

 

[bsnyder]

I guess I am glad that Bush has admitted to this and is seeking congressional oversight on the matter. (that is the jist of it right?)

Admitted to what?

 

[GeorgeG]

Now if we can just get the terrorists to play by the rules...

I really don't think the Geneva Convention could have ever imagined a war where one side will not adhere to any rules, is not even a country and doesn't wear uniforms. At best, we're in for difficult times and I don't know if rules will matter a whole lot. Kinda sucks, doesn't it?

 

[crcormier]

Admitted to what?

Not following the Geneva conventions?

And secret prisons. Isn't that against the law? I honestly don't know.