# al Qaeda Suspects "Disappearing"



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2004)

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/10/11/disappeared.suspects.ap/index.html


NEW YORK (AP) -- At least 11 al Qaeda suspects have "disappeared" in U.S. custody, and some may have been tortured, Human Rights Watch said in a report issued Monday.

The prisoners are probably being held outside the United States without access to the Red Cross or any oversight of their treatment, the human rights group said. In some cases, the United States will not even acknowledge the prisoners are in custody.

The report said the prisoners include the alleged architect of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, as well as Abu Zubaydah, who is believed to be a close aide to Osama bin Laden.

In refusing to disclose the prisoners' whereabouts or acknowledge the detentions, Human Rights Watch said, the U.S. government has violated international law, international treaties and the Geneva Convention. The group called on the government to bring all the prisoners "under the protection of the law."

"I think the U.S. demeans itself when it adopts the philosophy that the ends justify the means in the fight against terror," said Reed Brody, special counsel with Human Rights Watch.

CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the agency has not seen the report and declined to comment.

The report -- titled "The United States' `Disappeared:' The CIA's Long-term 'Ghost Detainees"' -- said many of the prisoners have provided valuable intelligence to U.S. officials. But it also cited reports that some detainees have lied under pressure to please their interrogators.

Human Rights Watch has no firsthand knowledge of the treatment of these detainees. Much of the report stems from news accounts that have cited unidentified government sources acknowledging the torture or mistreatment of detainees.

The report provides a brief sketch of 11 detainees believed to be incommunicado in undisclosed locations. They hail from countries across the Arab world, including Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. U.S. authorities have confirmed the detention of six of them, the report said.

Human Rights Watch has no firsthand knowledge of the treatment of these detainees.

But that would never stand in the way of a good-old fashioned US-bashing story would it?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/10/11/disappeared.suspects.ap/index.html
> 
> 
> *Human Rights Watch has no firsthand knowledge of the treatment of these detainees.* *Much of the report stems from news accounts that have cited unidentified government sources acknowledging the torture or mistreatment of detainees.*



Might as well be pulling the info out of their derrieres for what it's worth. No better than the star magazines quoting "a close friend of the subject says". Just raising shyte, to stay if the public focus and get free advertising and donations.

If, IF there really is "disappeared", oh well.

Just my $00.007 US


----------



## rw4th (12 Oct 2004)

Oh no  :

Source say they have been given to Santa Claus for use a slave elves in a secret toys-for-slaves-and-get-me-off-the-naughty-list" deal. Gotta keep those toy factories going ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2004)

What do al Qaeda Suspects and money under the liberals have in common....


----------



## winchable (13 Oct 2004)

Keeping in mind this is most likely the same human rights watch which gives us the information we use to justify embargos against rogue nations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> Keeping in mind this is most likely the same human rights watch which gives us the information we use to justify embargos against rogue nations.




And then the UN rewards said nations by putting them in charge of the UN Human Right Commission!


----------



## winchable (13 Oct 2004)

*sigh*
I keep writing them letters asking them to put me in charge, but no.


----------



## Bert (14 Oct 2004)

I've always viewed Natalia as kinda hot.


----------



## Gunnar (14 Oct 2004)

Just remember, while nobody will miss these wastes of human DNA, once you put power like that into the hands of the politicoes, they won't give it up.   It doesn't stop.   Next week, it could be you.

Power corrupts.   Absolute power corrupts absolutely.   A political elite which is repeatedly voted in by 20% of the uncaring, uneducated population has that power, because realistically, they don't govern, they rule.   Fiscal malfeasance and rampant abuse of power don't outrage that 20%...as long as you don't screw your interns, you don't need to worry about impeachment...(or losing the election)...just promise Johnny welfare a few more beans, let businessmen keep sending you bribes, and the rest, well, they don't care any more or understand the democratic system, so you're safe!   In the next few years, electronic voting will help, because it's easier to tamper with computers in order to maintain the status quo.   

Then, when your sister disappears, you'll wonder.

The Patriot Act under George & Co. has done more to ruin the freedom of Americans than all the terrorists combined because it abrogates the US constitution, i.e., undermines the very reason for the country's existence.     Canada is better off because of inertia, and the fact that the rats we have in our Capital are merely mice who emulate the rats to the south...but the fatter they get on public money and abused power, the more rat-like these mice become.

Bread and circuses kept the citizens of Rome happy while the Legions were kept far from home, lest they decide they could better run things.   Today, we have reality TV and welfare programs, while the amed forces are kept at arms length or deliberately starved into oblivion...

O tempora!   O mores!


----------



## GGboy (15 Oct 2004)

Still, it would explain al Qaeda's recent inability to mount major attacks in North America. I assume these scumbags are in a deep dark hole somewhere being interrogated aggressively (and hopefully intelligently) and if sketchy reports coming out of Gitmo can be believed they're singing like canaries.
I don't generally like governments having the kind of power the Patriot Act gives the current US administration, but there are situations where it's tough to argue with results ...


----------



## pappy (15 Oct 2004)

might want to check the laws of war / Geneva Convention.  It covers only those in uniform.  it does not cover guerrilla forces that do not wear military unitforms.  
Armed fighters in civilian clothing are fair game.

Personally if a few Al Qeada leaders disappear, then so be it.  I won't loss sleep over it.
These people stated their "cause" was to destroy the US and western society.

If someone had killed Hitler in 1933, would it have been a great loss?  hardly.

Political Correctness has no place in a war.
These Al Qaeda leaders and members do not deserve the use or protection of our laws.
These people will not constain themselves within our western laws, 
if we transpot them back to friendly middle eastern nations to and treat them to local laws, then none of us should not shed any tears.

If they get the chance they will not and have not shown us any compasion, we should show them none either.

I do not approve of torturing Innocent people, as I'm sure all of us believe.
But these Al Qeada are not Innocent, if we show them compassion they will only use that againest us, plain and simple.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Oct 2004)

Wasn't it shown that many of the members in Gitmo were either low on the totem pole members or not even involved in the war.  By offering bounties it was my understanding that many people sold out people they disliked for the $$$.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Oct 2004)

Personally, I would've liked to have tied them to rope and use them as a large live Rapala's off the Faralon Islands.








Matthew.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Oct 2004)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> Just remember, while nobody will miss these wastes of human DNA, once you put power like that into the hands of the politicoes, they won't give it up.  It doesn't stop.  Next week, it could be you.
> 
> Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  A political elite which is repeatedly voted in by 20% of the uncaring, uneducated population has that power, because realistically, they don't govern, they rule.  Fiscal malfeasance and rampant abuse of power don't outrage that 20%...as long as you don't screw your interns, you don't need to worry about impeachment...(or losing the election)...just promise Johnny welfare a few more beans, let businessmen keep sending you bribes, and the rest, well, they don't care any more or understand the democratic system, so you're safe!  In the next few years, electronic voting will help, because it's easier to tamper with computers in order to maintain the status quo.
> 
> ...



GUNNAR,
There's so much wrong with what you posted. Unfortunately, I just returned from a night of libacious overindulgence. I will revisit this tomorrow and formulate a sober argument for you. In the meantime, dwell on the fact that the unelected dictator of the Canadian government, who sits in Ottawa, holds more power than any democratic leader in the free world, including POTUS. He answers to no one but his party, and then only rarely, if he feels like it. Name one free world potentate who would have gotten away with what the Cretin did without having his ass handed to him by the people of his country. The Canadian public are sheep.


----------



## Fusaki (15 Oct 2004)

While its possible that torturing a terrorist may stop an attack and save lives in the short term, it establishes the notion that under some circumstances such actions are acceptable. So where would you draw the line where the ends no longer justify the means? Its a slippery slope that can eventually undermine the freedom that we're all trying to protect in the first place.

In my opinion, we can't afford to give the most powerfull nation on earth the benefit of the doubt. Even the suspicion that government agencies have compromised fundamental American values in favour of short term tactical goals should be heavily investigated.

Didn't Roosevelt say something about people who trade freedom for security end up with neither?


----------



## rw4th (15 Oct 2004)

> Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  A political elite which is repeatedly voted in by 20% of the uncaring, uneducated population has that power, because realistically, they don't govern, they rule.  Fiscal malfeasance and rampant abuse of power don't outrage that 20%...as long as you don't screw your interns, you don't need to worry about impeachment...(or losing the election)...just promise Johnny welfare a few more beans, let businessmen keep sending you bribes, and the rest, well, they don't care any more or understand the democratic system, so you're safe!  In the next few years, electronic voting will help, because it's easier to tamper with computers in order to maintain the status quo.


Sounds like you're describing the Liberal party to me



> The Patriot Act under George & Co. has done more to ruin the freedom of Americans than all the terrorists combined because it abrogates the US constitution, i.e., undermines the very reason for the country's existence.   Canada is better off because of inertia, and the fact that the rats we have in our Capital are merely mice who emulate the rats to the south...but the fatter they get on public money and abused power, the more rat-like these mice become.


Every heard of the Official Secrets Act? We've had that kind of scary legislation on the books up here way longer then they have.

At least the US Patriot Act has a sunset clause.


----------



## Gunnerlove (15 Oct 2004)

"might want to check the laws of war / Geneva Convention.   It covers only those in uniform.   it does not cover guerrilla forces that do not wear military unitforms.   
Armed fighters in civilian clothing are fair game."

Hey pappy you might want to dig a little deeper because you are wrong. The convention covers everyone. It just grants different rights based on what status they are given, and remember all it takes is an armband to make them a lawful combatant. 

Some would consider Americas attacks on Iraq's water treatment plants to be a grave breach of the conventions. 

In my opinion when a county begins to flout international law by capturing, torturing (let alone murdering)foreign nationals then the term rogue state makes a decent label.


----------



## winchable (15 Oct 2004)

> Even the suspicion that government agencies have compromised fundamental American values in favour of short term tactical goals should be heavily investigated.



Kudos Ghostwalk.
The same can be said about the possibility of wholesale slaughter of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.
I've come to disagree wtih Machiavelli on this point, at a certain point, the means will no longer justify the end. That happens when the right to a fair trial is skipped over. It's one of those rights we as westerners export to other countries and condemn said countries when they don't make use of it. 

We might not like the people they're interrogating, but we may as well show them why we're better.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Oct 2004)

> The Patriot Act under George & Co. has done more to ruin the freedom of Americans than all the terrorists combined because it abrogates the US constitution, i.e., undermines the very reason for the country's existence.



Really Gunnar? I'm curious as to what practical knowledge you have of freedom in America. I've lived as a foreigner in the United States for almost 15 years, and I don't feel like my rights are being violated...    :


----------



## rw4th (15 Oct 2004)

The Geneva Conventions and any other â Å“rules of warâ ? agreements are about as useful as the United Nations in this day and age and the concept of waging a â Å“Gentleman's Warâ ? or a civilized war is bullshit.

These agreements are only applicable if all the parties engaged in the war respect them. Terror organizations and terrorist/rogue states did not sign and/or do not respect the conventions. They have and continue to specifically target and kill non-combatants (including women and children) in every area of the world. Their â Å“soldiersâ ? (notice the quotes) are therefore not afforded any protection under this agreement. 

As for the torture issue, I have no problem with it. Pure physical torture has limited value for extracting information anyway, and any interrogator worth something knows this. Effective â Å“tortureâ ? based interrogation combines physical discomfort with psychological and chemical factors to disorient and persuade a person into talking.


----------



## rw4th (15 Oct 2004)

> The same can be said about the possibility of wholesale slaughter of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib.


On what exactly do you base this statement? While distasteful to some, the images that came out of Abu Ghraib in no way describe any â Å“slaughterâ ?.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Oct 2004)

I have to agree with rw4th here Che, You have previously stated that describing everyone as a "terrorist" cheapens the word.
Using the term "slaughter" in regards to Abu Ghraib, in my opinion grossly undermines the term "slaughter", I have to believe you didn't mean to use that word. I can think of several to describe the stupidity there but not that one.
Bruce


----------



## Gunnar (15 Oct 2004)

Muskrat:  Practical knowledge?  Apart from reports on the Internet about secret trials (which were revealed when some court reporter misfiled documents), the arrest of drug dealers and other, non-terrorist scum under "terrorist" laws, and the fact that the TSA doesn't seem to need to pay attention to laws about detaining citizens, some guy who took photos of a TOURIST ATTRACTION in a PUBLIC park is interrogated by the FBI...no practical knowlege.  I am assuming here that you're saying "name me a normal, law-abiding citizen who's rights have been abused, 'cuz everything's fine where I live".

Well, you're right...everything IS fine where you live, for now.  But as Ghostwalk pointed out, once you let the *principle* become accepted, you start down that slippery slope.  There is limited application of the abuses at present, but the rest is only a matter of time.  

Recceguy:  You're right, the Canadian public ARE sheep...that's the 20% comment, although 20% applies more to the US.  Plus, yes, there are widespread abuses by the Liberals and their ilk.  They simply haven't tried too hard to destroy the freedom of individuals up here because the voters, those limited number who vote them in, only get upset when their rights are threatened.  Since "everybody loves us" (and as long as they can make those people believe it), they can afford to let everyone continue to have their rights.  It isn't stopping them from fleecing us.  

Besides, apart from all that, our country isn't based on freedom anyway...it's based on POGG power, as I am sure you are aware.  This means that we already have a tradition of denying people their freedom, so there is little to take away, officially.  But I'll let you read my comments when sober so we can really have it out.   ^-^

Someone else mentioned a sunset clause in the Patriot act...I'm unfamiliar with the actual verbiage of the act, although I continue to see the results.  However, I have to wonder about other famous temporary laws....

The Constitution requires that any law which is passed using the Notwithstanding Clause must be renewed every 5 years, or it reverts to its unconstitutional status....yet Quebec still prosecutes people for posting in English, and nobody has called them on it.  Bourassa is gone.  Can we get rid of his dumb law now?

The Income Tax Act was passed as a temporary measure to help pay for WW1.  I'm so glad it was temporary.  Can I stop paying now?  I don't recall hearing about the solid gold uniforms all our troops must have worn.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" -- Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Oct 2004)

bahhhhhhhhhaahhhhhhhh


----------



## winchable (15 Oct 2004)

*sigh*



> On what exactly do you base this statement? While distasteful to some, the images that came out of Abu Ghraib in no way describe any â Å“slaughterâ ?.



I was actually alluding to a suggestion you made about 25 of them for 1 of us in another thread regarding Kenneth Bigley.
I was speaking theoretically and of course about the extreme end of things. 
If the Americans stray from the values they are in the region to implement (the right to a fair trial, protection from unlawful confinement, freedom, liberty) then they might as well leave. Even if they are dealing with the enemy they are no better than said enemy if they start behaving like the enemy.



> and any interrogator worth something knows this. Effective â Å“tortureâ ? based interrogation combines physical discomfort with psychological and chemical factors to disorient and persuade a person into talking.



The thread isn't about casuing psychological and physical discomfort in order to extract information (in fact I'm pretty sure that's what interrogation is tough there are certain degrees of it I'm sure) it's about people dropping off the face of the planet a la the USSR, Cuba, PDRK, Iran....


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Oct 2004)

> although I continue to see the results



equals "continue to read on the internet" ?   ???


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Oct 2004)

From the Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/021aigav.asp



> To say the Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to spy on people because of their taste in reading is like saying that equipping beat cops with night sticks authorizes the police to bludgeon old ladies who annoy them. Sure, a rogue element at the FBI can run amok. It could before the Patriot Act. It can after the Patriot Act--not by doing what the law authorizes, but by breaking the law.
> 
> 
> Judge for yourself. Section 215 is very short. It has to do with record requests "for an investigation to protect against international
> ...


----------

