Destroyed Tapes Show CIA Prisons In Thailand

[NovaBlue05]

I amazed how naive a lot of you are - if you think your home country isn't doing this every day then you are living in a fairy tale. Black Ops happen all the time - you just dont know about or choose to not think about it.

True...This debate will be kicked around for a while in the west and all responsible parties will assure the world that they don't exercise or condone that sort of thing.

Then, they will go on with doing what they have always done to get the intel they think they need. This aint no new phenomenon that started when Bush took office. FDR censored the media in WWII in order to keep the actual carnage and vicious brutality of the war from being brought home for fear of a loss of support for the effort.

[moldy]

I amazed how naive a lot of you are - if you think your home country isn't doing this every day then you are living in a fairy tale. Black Ops happen all the time - you just dont know about or choose to not think about it.

The problem with some of you - if its out to save your life or your families life you have no problem with these techniques. However when it comes to someone else its morally wrong.

Whatever it takes to save lives I am ok with and I have a clear conscience to boot.

I for one think you have a valid argument, just wanted to know if you'd thought it out. I thought my questions were quite straightforward on an earlier posting. You want to just go blindly on up to you as the Thais say. I also think there is the case of accountability in error. Surely if a torturere gets it wrong, down to him to pay the price.

[PhilHarries]

Yes I knew people who died in 9/11 and I am closely aware of the impact of terrorism here in London and I still do not agree with torture to defend me and mine.

I would like to assume from that line you are not a parent or family man because only young idealistic tw@ts spout that kind of nonsense but the use of "and mine" indicates you are. If you are a family "man", and I use the term man very loosely, the forum rules are defending you from what I would like to say a lot more than you would defend your family.

The problem with some of you - if its out to save your life or your families life you have no problem with these techniques. However when it comes to someone else its morally wrong.

Whatever it takes to save lives I am ok with and I have a clear conscience to boot.

buffcoat evidently disagrees with you, he'd sacrifice his entire family rather than get heavy handed with any suspects

Think of this scenario:

Your child is being held hostage by a gang in a cell somewhere you'll never find. They've put a ransom on him/her that you'll never be able to raise. Somehow one of the gang members has been caught but refuses to talk. Will you kindly ask him where your child is until he tells you while his buddies prepare the execution or will you beat the living shit out of him and by any means possible get the location out of him?

buffcoat would get the guy tea and biscuits, put him in a five star hotel and go stand in the corner with his trousers round his ankles holding a pot of vaseline.

Not all muslims are rabid nutters but there must be quite a few moderates that are harbouring the murderous scum. The sooner they realise that the pain they are feeling is down to their fundamentalist friends and turn the b@st@rds in the sooner the world can find peace.

[Supaporn]

Wow - my post was deleted.... and no reason given.... no personal attacks, no flames, no off the wall extremist views... just a call to end the petty tit tat discussion. Guess they want it to contiue?

[IMA_FARANG]

CIA SECRET PRISONS

Destroyed tapes show CIA prisons in Thailand : Washington Post

The sticky issue of Thailand permitting the CIA to set up a secret prison where alleged torture of suspected al-Qaeda members were conducted surfaced again Thursday as the US lawmakers listen to the agency's top lawyer in a closed testimony about a destroyed interrogation videotapes.

Washington Post reported today that the CIA station chief in Bangkok sent a classified cable in late 2005, asking permission to destroy the videotapes " recorded at a secret CIA prison in Thailand that in part portrayed intelligence officers using simulated drowning to extract information from suspected al-Qaeda members."

News about Thailand hosting a covert prison system set up by the CIA around 2001 was first reported by the Washington Post in November 2005. Besides Thailand, Afghanistan and several countries in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, were the places where the CIA had set up its covert prison system.

It said Thailand was part of the "hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions," the Washington Post reported in the November 2, 2005 edition. The report provoked an international outcry. Bangkok denied the claim.

In the US capital today, a top member of the House Intelligence Committee told reporters after meeting with the CIA's acting general counsel, John Rizzo, who testified behind closed doors as the first witness in what committee officials have said will be a long investigation.

The CIA official who gave the command to destroy the videotapes apparently acted against the direction of his superiors, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich told reporters after the four hours meeting. "It appears he hadn't gotten authority from anyone," Hoekstra said.

The US Justice Department and the House intelligence committee are now investigating whether that deed constituted a violation of law or an obstruction of justice.

"I believe there are parts of the intelligence community that don't believe they are accountable to Congress and may not be accountable to their own superiors in the intelligence community, and that's why it's a problem," he said.

At the center of the controversy is Jose Rodriguez, who had been scheduled to appear in front of the Committee on the same day but his testimony was delayed by his demand for immunity.

Rodriguez was the head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, the CIA branch that oversees spying operations and interrogations. He gave the order to destroy the tapes in November 2005.

Washington Post reported Rodriguez's attorney, Robert S. Bennett, as saying his client had consulted with CIA lawyers and officials who told him that he had the legal right to order the destruction of the tape.

The Post said congressional investigators have turned up no evidence that anyone in the Bush administration openly advocated the tapes' destruction.

The Post also quoted Rodriguez's attorney saying his client was carrying out the agency's stated intention.

"Since 2002, the CIA wanted to destroy the tapes to protect the identity and lives of its officers and for other counterintelligence reasons," Bennett said in a written response to questions from The Washington Post.

"In 2003 the leadership of intelligence committees were told about the CIA's intent to destroy the tapes. In 2005, CIA lawyers again advised the National Clandestine Service that they had the authority to destroy the tapes and it was legal to do so. It is unfortunate," Bennett continued, "that under the pressure of a Congressional and criminal investigation, history is now being revised, and some people are running for cover."

Source: The Nation - 17 January 2008

Not to be picky.....but how can a destroyed video-tape show anything. Isn't what is meant is that an allegedly destroyed video-tape allegedly showed torture methods in an alleged faciliity that was alledgedly in THailand?

[britmaveric]

So how about I take you for a bit of waterboarding Brit, as I think you are involved or at least know something.

I am sure within a few minutes you will give me all the replies I want to hear.

You wanna try?

It is really not harmfull, just a bit uncomfy.

You wanna try?

Hmmmm?

Well I prefer waterboarding over: breaking bones, pulling teeth, electrocution, burning, ripping finger nails off, chopping extremities off ect. Hands down water boarding is very humane, unfortunately our enemies use the other methods. Then kill you. I think any reasonable person would agree with me that water boarding is the less evasive tactic.

[sonnyJ]

It's funny you mention that because that's exactly what happened in the end: a peace deal with Hirohito that allowed him to remain emperor

I don't think he had much of a choice, considering two nukes were dropped on his country first, with the threat of more! Try working out a deal with that guy before that happened...

Actually there was no need to drop the bombs.

Hirohito had already lost.

Japanese army was on full retreat.

It was a political trade-off between many innocent Japanese civilians and Korean workers lives against a lot less of allied soldiers lives. The American president chose the best option for himself.

Please review the history to see the present.

[sonnyJ]

I think torture is justifiable in this case. Why should you care about one life and one person when you could potentially extract information that could save lives? That's more important, a dangerous person's psychological health or the lives of many? What's more evil, to let information be concealed or to force it out of an individual and prevent the death of many?

The people interrogated weren't civilians, they were combatants. They weren't your nephew who struggles to get good grades so he can get into a good school, they're people who would kill you if they were given the chance. I acknowledge that what they're doing is torture, there is no doubt of that; it's just that I think in cases like this it's pretty justifiable. I think it's appalling that you think that torture of these individuals isn't right.

On the other hand, it's pretty weird that the CIA has prisons here of all places.

How can you know this all?

Examples please, when did torture give any useful information. As a CIA chief I would be throwing the achievements in every direction.

[grantbkk]

First, one of the original questions on this thread is, where is this so called prison? If it has been in place since 2001 or 2002, some of us have seen the unmarked helicopters or business jets landing at all hours at a military base. It would have to have runway access and be only a short drive to the holding facility. I suspect that the "secret prison" would be in an existing prison or a highly secure area within a military base. The outer perimeter would have to be guarded by Thai Special Forces that obviously have the ability to keep their mouths shut for the past six years. No conscripts would have access to this very special area which would further complicate matters and people would begin to talk about it like " Area 51" where the USA keeps their captured flying sauces and detainees from other planets.

Waterboarding is just one tool in a box of special tools used to extract information from a recalcitrant individual. Simulating drowning could be a theatrical demonstration of officials appearing to drown a suspect who is actually one of the team. That alone will loosen up some of the terrorists if he "thinks" he is next.

Perhaps these seemingly out of control employees or contractors are doing exactly what they are supposed to do thus giving plausible deniability to their controllers. Maybe not but I'm just saying...

When this prison was allegedly created in 2001 or 2002 Thailand had a very powerful democratically elected government in place. Billions of dollars were flowing into Thailand from the USA in the form of foreign aid and especially military arms and equipment. Something we don't hear too much about and it is something the current non-elected government conveniently never mentions. I have a bit of experience here so I'm convinced that a select few in the upper reaches of the government was approached by the coalition to facilitate the request. Keep in mind that current military government must have had a hand in this too even if they were just acting on "orders" from above. The logistics were worked out and the alleged prison would have been set up using specific guidelines provided to the Thai government by [fill in the blank].

When the Washington Post published the article about the "secret prisons" in 2005 there were denials all around. What part of "secret" is confusing people. Of course the fact that the prison existed here is going to be denied. In 2005 the story faded from the scene. I'm not so sure that is going to happen in 2008. Now we have more disgruntled patriots coming out of their respective holes in the ground expressing mock outrage. The old adage, "When more than one person knows something it is not longer a secret", seems to apply here. Now a high ranking CIA lawyer is telling a "closed" congressional committee panel that the Thai "secret prison" did or does exist. The people in the room rushed out to tell whomever they owe about the prison and the tiger is now out of the cage.

Without the heavy participation of the last two Thai governments this would not have occurred here. Thailand has a long history of cooperation with the United States and who know what was promised in return for their cooperation and active involvement.

One more time: Where is it or where was it?

[dominique355]

Two questions come to my mind:

1. Why does the US Government and it's agencies use secret prisons in foreign countries, why don't they do these interrogations in prisons on US American soil?

2. Why did the Thai government allow them?

The answer to question 1 seem obvious: Because the US Government and its agencies know that what they are doing is illegal and if doing so on US soil, they could and would be held responsible.

It is illegal according to US law and it is illegal under the Geneva Convention, which the USA signed. Under the Geneva Convention (GC), there are only two kind of people: soldiers and civilians. Soldiers have rights under the GC, civilians under the local laws. The US Government choose not to respect the Geneva Convention (Guantanamo etc) and by torturing these prisoners in foreign countries, they believe their civil rights can be violated.

The answer to question 2 should probably be asked former PM Thaksin, but it seems to fit seamlessly into his policy of Drug War. Shoot first, ask questions after (although I am not sure anyone will ever ask serious questions.).

[grantbkk]

Two questions come to my mind:

1. Why does the US Government and it's agencies use secret prisons in foreign countries, why don't they do these interrogations in prisons on US American soil?

2. Why did the Thai government allow them?

The answer to question 1 seem obvious: Because the US Government and its agencies know that what they are doing is illegal and if doing so on US soil, they could and would be held responsible.

It is illegal according to US law and it is illegal under the Geneva Convention, which the USA signed. Under the Geneva Convention (GC), there are only two kind of people: soldiers and civilians. Soldiers have rights under the GC, civilians under the local laws. The US Government choose not to respect the Geneva Convention (Guantanamo etc) and by torturing these prisoners in foreign countries, they believe their civil rights can be violated.

The answer to question 2 should probably be asked former PM Thaksin, but it seems to fit seamlessly into his policy of Drug War. Shoot first, ask questions after (although I am not sure anyone will ever ask serious questions.).

Looks like you answered your questions while postulating them. Seems like they are rhetorical.

[hammered]

Torture can be very effective in obtaining confessions to activities or crimes. However, the confession may well be false just to relieve from tiorture. However, a quick read on matter relating to the effectiveness of troture in obtaining useful information (it is easy to search and find stacks of material) quickly reveals that virtually all information is regarded as useless or false. Tell them what they want to hear to make the pain go away. That those who torture tell us that they have found and stopped lots of plots is of no surprise. Anyone on TV will after a tad of torture be willingly confesing to being invovled in 9/11 or...... Therefore why torture? In reality it probably fits more with it looks like the country is doing all it can to keep citizens safe. If there is a terrorist incident the powers can say, well we have been ...... There are also no doubt elements of revenge in it. the Muslims blew up our towers so we..... These two ideas fit in with the base human instinct arguements of having a kidnapper of your kid and needing to extract info or what you would do to a child molester.

I guess everyone has their opinion, but for me I dont support torture mostly for ethical reasons but also tinged with knowing it doesnt work, which means I dont have the worry of thinking maybe enough isnt being done. Dont expect your governments to advance the "it doesnt work" thingy any time soon. After all we also shouldnt forget that governments just love using power.

[AlexLah]

Ok lah after a bit of searching a few questions can possibly be answered as to where these prisons where/are and who was in the know.

According to sources directly involved in setting up the CIA secret prison system, it began with the capture of Abu Zabayda in Pakistan. After treatment there for gunshot wounds, he was whisked by the CIA to Thailand where he was housed in a small, disused warehouse on an active airbase Sattahip naval base.

Zubaida was initially interrogated by the FBI using traditional rapport building techniques, and many believe the FBI was obtaining valuable information (see Mid-April 2002). But he is being held at a secret CIA prison in Thailand (see March 2002), and soon a new CIA team comes in and takes over (see Mid-April 2002). This team, led by controversial psychologist James Elmer Mitchell, uses such extreme methods that the FBI completely withdraws its personnel (see Mid-April-May 2002), and even some CIA personnel leave in disgust.

Zubaida gave up far less valuable information under torture than he did with the FBI’s rapport building techniques.

One CIA source told us: “in Thailand, it was a case of ‘you stick with what you know’;” however, since the allegations pertaining to Thailand were not the direct focus of our inquiry, we did not elaborate further on these references in our discussions. The specific location of the “black site” in Thailand has been publicly alleged to be a facility in Udon Thani, near to the Udon Royal Thai Air Force Base in the north-east of the country. This base does have long-standing connections to with the approach of most US partner countries, the Thai Government has denied these allegations outright.

Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister at the time of the interrogations, has always denied that there was any CIA "base" or "prison" in Thailand.

The Thai PM's Office spokesman, Suranand Vejjajiva, insisted no such prison existed at the station and says everyone he has spoken to, including the Udon Thani governor, the VOA station manager and the US embassy, have assured him nothing out of the ordinary was going on...

This is a completely groundless story. There is no secret al-Qaeda detention site here in Thailand," Government spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee said in response to the report...

Foreign Ministry deputy spokes-man Kittikhun Chartprasert said yesterday that, despite strong speculation, Thailand never had one of these so-called black sites.

Why would Thailand governement agree with having a secret prison on their soil, well have a read and look how much money is involved.

http://www.us-asean.org/Thailand/CRS_Repor...i_Relations.pdf

Another short story: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...755C0A9659C8B63

So there we have it, a few people possibly in the know and a PM that just denies and ask the US not to tell that Thailand is a very good help in the so called war

on terror by letting the US use Thai airstrips to make attacks on Iraq and Afganistan, have secret CIA interogation facilities, and let them illegally bring in suspects who are then being tortured with methods that go against all Geneva convention rules and even disgust US agents.

The motive?

Money (see PDF)

On a sidenote:

For those interested just search for: James Elmer Mitchell and see what he does and believes in.

Read this book to find out what the US and other countries are doing : Brainwash, The secret history of mind control isbn 9-7803-4083-1

Here an example from a once classified document about brain washing.

For those of you that think Islamic terrorist are the major cause of bomb attacks etc. watch this serie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zP4VJAhTLY...feature=related

And Brit, electrocution is still being used by US as well as pulling out fingernails (They grow back).

But for your info nowadays one of their methods is stabbing toothpicks under the fingernails, much more painfull.

Do you know most of the documents on the experiments on humans that was done during the MK Ultra project have been destroyed?

Solution?

Do it all over again and find new ways.

And Brit, has any Iraqi person ever been involved in the 9/11?

[percy2]

So in this war on terrorism one side takes terrorists prisoners , but they aren't prisoners of war. Then they use terror to gain information from these terrorist prisoners to stop further terror

The land of the free then deny freedom and rights to innocent people (until proven guilt) , but its ok because they don't do it in the land of the free

Lets hope Hilary can sort it all out.

CHeers

[Gumballl]

Reading through every one of the posts in this thread, I have concluded that torture can be inflicted in many different ways... yawn, I'm going to bed.

[Lilawadee]

Do you know how to read? The rules on treatment of prisoners ONLY applies to soldiers who are part of a country's armed forces.

Again: How convenient.

Either way you can't possibly win this discussion, and I've read quite a bit of psycho extremist views here that make me think twice about quite a lot of posters who seemed reasonable people before.

To spell it out: If they AREN'T part of a country's armed forces then this puts it in the realm of law enforcement. People who committed crimes should them be extradited and face trial.

Where in the US constitution does it say that torture is sometimes okay in law enforcement?

It DOESN'T. Anyone advocating this is an accomplice to undermining the US constitution and the very values they pretend to hold dear.

If the terrorists capture US soldiers, they are killed. Got it?

Interesting then that the US has supported and is supporting many groups they prefer to call 'freedom fighters'. But if they're on the other side then they're terrorists I guess.

Mr. Bush belongs in The Hague, very clear and simple. Then he can pretend he 'didn't know'.

[Supaporn]

Either way you can't possibly win this discussion, .........

Absolutely the only real truth I have seen yet in this entire thread - for ALL sides.

Let it rest

[klikster]

I'm sure other methods could produce results, eg, sound bombardment. This waterboarding does seem to have a sadistic edge.

Do you folks ever think through these great ideas? Yeah, blast 150 db at him as you're interrogating him .. too bad that he can't hear you .. nor will he be able to for some time, due to temporary hearing loss .. oops, probably permanent hearing loss.

Nah, not sadistic at all.

Edited January 20, 2008 by klikster

[Gary A]

The question to ask yourself is how many innocent lives have been saved. False confessions?? When seeking information about bomb making factories, torture chambers, arms stores and safe houses where kidnapped innocents are kept, either they are there or they are not. I have no moral qualms how we get that information.

[hammered]

The question to ask yourself is how many innocent lives have been saved. False confessions?? When seeking information about bomb making factories, torture chambers, arms stores and safe houses where kidnapped innocents are kept, either they are there or they are not. I have no moral qualms how we get that information.

There are many many people in the world who think Guantanamo Bay is where kidnapped innocents are kept, and who think the torture chambers are in US bases. What you are arguing is I support my side and I dont care what we do and the other side is evil. What unfortunately gets massive support in the Muslim world and for that matter outside the Muslim world (remember the best selling Ossama T-shirts in street markets in Thailand after 9/11) for those who oppose the US even in the most hideous and brutal way is the refusal of the US and many of its people to accept equivalence in value of life. Maybe a question to ask is how many innocent people have we killed and how does that affect our standing in the world? I have no moral qualms about condemining all murder and torutre of innocents including all by terrorists, militias, police, western militaries, so called intelligence organizations and mercenaries.

[grantbkk]

So in this war on terrorism one side takes terrorists prisoners , but they aren't prisoners of war. Then they use terror to gain information from these terrorist prisoners to stop further terror

The land of the free then deny freedom and rights to innocent people (until proven guilt) , but its ok because they don't do it in the land of the free

Lets hope Hilary can sort it all out.

CHeers

I really don't think Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, Hillary, can sort out something like this. It looks like sometimes extraordinary measures are necessary to achieve extraordinary results. I find it unacceptable that an American flies to a Philippines resort with his mistress and is kidnapped by terrorists and then beheaded. That was a real shock to his wife and kids. Civilian contractors (not working as mercenaries) and NGO's kidnapped in Iraq tortured and mutilated. The daily suicide bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq murdering innocent men, women and children in the name of Jihad.

Let me say I have somewhat of a double standard on this subject. I do not want to be interrogated by either side in any of these conflicts. If I had to choose I would prefer waterboarding by a few coalition interrogates to anything else and I think Thailand would be a great location to be released. R & R in Pattaya or Phuket would be in order after such an experience. When they realize they got the wrong guy I don't think that they would begrudge me a bit of time on the beach. Being questioned by non-coalition member country I would not expect to be set free at all. The prospect of being mutilated and later having my murder shown on Terror TV (Al J All the Time or something like that) would have me concentrating on how to keep from gurgling or losing control of my bodily functions for posterity when they do me in.

The prevention of major terrorist incidents, especially in the country where my family lives and propagates is JOB ONE. To the terrorists I would remind them as they remind us everyday that fighting terrorism is a very dirty job. We have a wooden plank and a little water to sometimes extract information from a misguided individual. The non-Jihadists may have used this method to help keep my loved ones safe. If they did, they are partially responsible for preventing another large scale attack on US soil.

You know what I see when I visualize the indignant? When they are writing their moral objection to what amounts to less than the near downing experiences we all had playing in swimming pools when we were children? I see crying and tears rolling down their cheeks and dripping onto their computer keyboards. I really hope that their computers fail from water damage so they have time to think about their courageous stand on the subject.

Cheers!

[Gary A]

Quite frankly I was adamantly opposed to sending our troops into Iraq. I wasn't very popular among my expat friends. I had no problems dropping bombs down Saddam's chimney and wiping out his Republican guard but I was seriously opposed to the invasion. We are dealing with lunatics and you cannot negotiate with lunatics. I blame organized religion for most of the problems the world has ever faced. From the crusades to the atrocities today.

[percy2]

Quite frankly I was adamantly opposed to sending our troops into Iraq. I wasn't very popular among my expat friends. I had no problems dropping bombs down Saddam's chimney and wiping out his Republican guard but I was seriously opposed to the invasion. We are dealing with lunatics and you cannot negotiate with lunatics. I blame organized religion for most of the problems the world has ever faced. From the crusades to the atrocities today.

I didn't agree with your other post Gary but I agree with everything in this one.

Cheers

[NovaBlue05]

If it were not for a few hillbilly GI's taking pictures of their depraved humiliation of inmates, we likely would'nt even be having this "debate"

[TommyGun]

Quite frankly I was adamantly opposed to sending our troops into Iraq. I wasn't very popular among my expat friends. I had no problems dropping bombs down Saddam's chimney and wiping out his Republican guard but I was seriously opposed to the invasion. We are dealing with lunatics and you cannot negotiate with lunatics. I blame organized religion for most of the problems the world has ever faced. From the crusades to the atrocities today.

Religion isn't the problem. The Global elite is.

Press Release: Scotland Yard to investigate Tony Blair and ex-Attorney General Peter Goldsmith for war crimes

Press Conference,

Room C, 1 Parliament Street

Tuesday 15th January 2008 3pm

John McDonnell MP, Chris Coverdale: International War Law Expert and Annie Machon of the Campaign to Make War History brief MPs and the media on allegations of war crimes committed against the people of Iraq by Britain's former Prime Minister and former Attorney General.

Officers from Scotland Yard have commenced a criminal investigation into the deaths of Iraqi citizens killed during the armed invasion and occupation of Iraq. The Metropolitan Police are acting in response to crimes reported by peace activists from We Are Change UK and The Campaign to Make War History. In an unprecedented step, the case was handed to the War Crimes division of the Counter Terrorism branch who are now investigating allegations of 14 criminal offences committed by Tony Blair, Lord Goldsmith and others. The offences are under the International Criminal Court Act 2001, which came into effect under English common law, just two days before 9/11.

Two Members of We Are Change UK and a representative from the Campaign to Make War History were interviewed for six hours at Belgravia Police station on the 20th December 2007. Evidence was provided to the police relating to the crimes of:-

• genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and conduct ancillary to these crimes under Sections 51 and 52 of The International Criminal Court Act 2001.

• a crime against peace and complicity in a crime against peace under Articles 6 and 7 of The Nuremburg Principles.

• murder, incitement to murder and conspiracy to murder under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

• conspiracy to commit genocide, a crime against humanity and war crimes under the Criminal Law Act 1977.

If anyone want the links to the youtube press interviews PM.

[Lilawadee]

Ahhh! I see we have another naive pinhead posting here:D Let me clue you in buckwheat, the U.S. Constitution governs U.S. citizens and legal immigrants on U.S. soil, now just what part of this picture don't you get my simple minded friend? Torture or any sort of duress is illegal in the U.S., thats why these slugs are interrogated at GITMO and elsewhere outside of the USA. What goes on at GITMO and any other U.S. interrogation facilities around the world is childs play compared to the way the Chinese and Russian governments routinely treat their own people on their own soil, not to mention the way the mexican government treats the indians in chiapas and situations similiar to that in S.America, Africa, the middle east, ect. ect., you get the picture now! Bin laden and his slugs brought the fight to the U.S. (a very big mistake on his part)

A big mistake? Bin Laden was a relative nobody before he did that. Now he's every extremist's guiding light. I'd say from his view it was pretty successful. And then the US response made it even MORE of a success. (Blindly lashing out at a Middle Eastern dictator that Bin Laden dispises about as much as Mr Bush does.)

See, the trouble with many people is that they completely lack the ability to see things from their opponents perspective. It's the old saying "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer".

I knew Bush would completely embarrass himself and his nation about 30 minutes after the towers fell, when he said something like 'These cowardly acts'... Okay.. call it murderous, call it anything, but 'cowardly' shows that you have no concept of what just happened: 20 or so young men giving their lives for their cause, and managing to strike the ultimate power in the world in such a way that it still resonates 7 years after. They managed nothing short of a 'Pearl Harbour', and with very limited means but the willingness to give one's life.

Again, it's murderous terrorism, but I honestly can't call it cowardice. Bush didn't get that then, and thousands of dead US soldiers later, he still doesn't get it now.

[Miami Bob]

I wonder if people in WW2 complained about waterboarding an SS officer during interrigation. War is war and don't forget who started it long before 911. Well, one thing we know for sure is that like ALL problems on planet earth it must be ............."ALL GEORGE BUSHES FAULT !! "

[Miami Bob]

It's funny you mention that because that's exactly what happened in the end: a peace deal with Hirohito that allowed him to remain emperor

I don't think he had much of a choice, considering two nukes were dropped on his country first, with the threat of more! Try working out a deal with that guy before that happened...

Actually there was no need to drop the bombs.

Hirohito had already lost.

Japanese army was on full retreat.

It was a political trade-off between many innocent Japanese civilians and Korean workers lives against a lot less of allied soldiers lives. The American president chose the best option for himself.

Please review the history to see the present.

What history books did you read?? If the two nukes had not been dropped there would have been a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland in which many, many,many more Japanese civilians as well as soldiers would have died than died in the nukes explosions. And who started that war?... why should even one more allied soldier have died in a conventional invasion?

[TommyGun]

It's funny you mention that because that's exactly what happened in the end: a peace deal with Hirohito that allowed him to remain emperor

I don't think he had much of a choice, considering two nukes were dropped on his country first, with the threat of more! Try working out a deal with that guy before that happened...

Actually there was no need to drop the bombs.

Hirohito had already lost.

Japanese army was on full retreat.

It was a political trade-off between many innocent Japanese civilians and Korean workers lives against a lot less of allied soldiers lives. The American president chose the best option for himself.

Please review the history to see the present.

What history books did you read?? If the two nukes had not been dropped there would have been a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland in which many, many,many more Japanese civilians as well as soldiers would have died than died in the nukes explosions. And who started that war?... why should even one more allied soldier have died in a conventional invasion?

He's been reading the history books that tell the true stories about the war, not the one that are printed to make US look like a civilased nation. US were looking for a reason to enter the WW and Pearl Harbour was the catastophic event for them. And i believe there was a more recent catastophic event for them to enter the middle east.

The only people that ever gain form this is are the global elite's. Bankers, Arms dealers etc etc.

Edited January 20, 2008 by TommyGun

[TommyGun]

Reported in the Canadian press that Canada has Siria, Iran, Isreal, and the USA on it's torture watch list.

Of course the US have demanded for it to be removed which will happen.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN17629871

Edited January 20, 2008 by TommyGun