NEWS: Victims of US Torture Can't Discuss it Because of "National Security"

POLITICS: Victims of US Torture Can't Discuss it Because of "National Security"

The story just keeps more and more absurd. First there was talk of secret CIA prisons where the US could keep suspected terrorists held outside of the protections of US laws. Then the discovery of widespread torture of inmates at the US holding facility in Guantanamo bay, Cuba. The realization that suspected terrorists in these facilities did not have access to an actual public trial, but had to submit to a military tribunal's decision if they attempted to challenge their imprisonment (later found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.) Now the Bush administration has decided that these torture practices that the US "does not practice" have become a matter of "sensitive national security." And as such, their victims may not discuss the conditions of their "interrogations" with anyone, even their attorneys.

Majid Khan, the complainant in the case, was held captive in US facilities for years in what can only be described as horrendous conditions, while his family did not know his whereabouts.



All of these tactics, when combined, point to a regime that goes beyond any notion of a Nixonian "imperial" presidency. It is tyranny, plain and simple, in the guise of democracy and a "war" against terrorism. Naysayers are often quick to dismiss this type of characterization of the US, assuring people that the secret police have not begun coming in the middle of the night to abduct suspects. Think again.

Khan may be an actual terrorist. He may be involved in planning terrorist actions against the US and its allies. As such he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But that statement only means something when the law itself means something. A government that is willing to place itself above its own constraints in such fundamental aspects of civilization as a right to a fair and public trial, access to an attorney, imprisonment and interrogation in humane conditions and presumption of innocence in order to pursue a political agenda has lost all credibility and moral authority. A complete lack of Congressional oversight on the actions of the Bush presidency have contributed to this disaster, a situation which will hopefully be remedied soon in a few days when the Republicans who toed the line as their president pissed on the constitution are stomped on by their Democratic opponents in the election.

The Law is worthless if the creators arent willing to follow it themselves.

Anyone to share a farmhouse in canada? Anyone?

yawn ..... so what's new about the US trampling over people's and other nation's rights?

Just face facts, the US is an Imperialist nation (of the worst kind).

hmmm ..... do you think secret torture prisons will help stop the Jihadi'ist? Unfortunately, as history points out, your cretinous leaders think it will.

I'd had this fantasy that someone aducts and torture Rove or Cheney in the exact same ways they have had people abducted and tortured. But maybe we'll all get the gift of impeachment/. Oh that would be lovely.

The Aussie is not very constructive. He should give a fellow ex colony of the British Empire some credit. And Jihadi'ist is not a dirty word. It is a complement to those he speaks of.

If people stop talking about it and condemning it then everyone will conveniently forget that it ever happened.

I've got to be honest...this could be legitimate. I know it's easy to demonize everything that the Bush administration does, but the potential leak of interrogation techniques would be catastrophic for interrogators. I'm not saying it isn't suspicious, but we really should wait before we automatically assume that they're covering up torture. There is no difference between this and every other conspiracy theory and that's exactly what this is. It's more probable than others, but nonetheless a conspiracy theory. Let's give them an inch to breathe for once.

Wait for what? We're never going to find out what the methods are, because that would be a security risk, so we'll never know if it's torture or not.

No , lets not.

Secret prisons ? Secret interrogation techniques ? You think that MIGHT be legit so let it slide ?

These are not stardards I was led to believe my country stood for.

If we do that, we're no better than them. We are probably going to be in a great position 2 months from now (with the house and senate controlled by Dems) and then we'll really know if things like this are conspiracies or in fact, just national security. I'm not saying that we should cut them slack on every issue, but in a situation like this, with nothing but hearsay and conjecture to back up the validity, we should at least ALLOW for the possibility of it being true.

Ok, you edited this before I posted, so I'll reply to this as well.

I'm not targeting this part of the article. The part about keeping people quiet regarding interrogation techniques used is what I'm referring to. Until the time Bush recommended this, they could have come out and let us know if anything horrible happened and they didn't.

Yeah, where were all those people stored away in secret prisons before all this? Why didn't they come forward and tell us their stories?

......

By the same logic, what difference does it make if they can't talk about this if they're in secret prisons?

From the Washington Post it sounds as if they worry about someone finding the locations rather than the methods:
"Because Khan "was detained by CIA in this program, he may have come into possession of information, including locations of detention, conditions of detention, and alternative interrogation techniques that is classified at the TOP SECRET//SCI level," an affidavit from CIA Information Review Officer Marilyn A. Dorn states, using the acronym for "sensitive compartmented information."

This guy looks bad to me, and he was arrested by the Pakistani's. There are protests in Pakistan this afternoon. His brother, wife and child were released after 1 week according to Washington Post. His family is frustrated because they can't communicate with him. He is in the Cuba Military Jail.

Well, on a positive note, our government seems only worried about the upcoming transfers from the secret jails in other countries, not about all the people who have been at the Cuba jail for the last few years.

I'm thinking too much for this late on a Friday afternoon... excuse all the words.

You mean, considering they are no longer secret and stories have been piling in for quite some time now? (which is what necessitates this new bullshit attempt at obstruction by the administration in the first place)

Maybe you haven't been paying attention but they HAVE been coming forward and saying all manner of horrible shameful things. One specific case is even talked about directly above.
The bottom line is if they are using legitimate interrogation techniques they are already widely known. No need to hide it. Most of the illegal ones are widely too. So what could they possibly need to hide ?
Think they got some ultra new way to talk to people that makes them just fall in love and automatically share everything they know ? Think it must remain a national secret for our security because if word leaked out the terrorist would understand the " good cop / bad cop routine " ?

BIG flaw in your logic there champ. Unless you have some magic power that enables you to see into mens souls.

Usually we don't convict people based on how they look.

I'm wondering what is possibly so special about these "alternative interrogation methods" (obviously nothing) that presents a legitimate threat to national security. I imagine that soldiers and terrorists are already informed, to some degree, about the possible methods of torture that they might have to endure. I admit that I'm not well-versed in torture methods, but doesn't it all basically boil down to different methods of causing pain, fear, or psychological harm? Sure, there are many ways of harming the human body or mind, but the effects seem pretty much the same in the end.

Well, to be fair, that's the meat of the article, the rest of it is just my usual spouting off about the bush adminstration.

While I can certainly acknowledge the desire to want to keep this information confidential, in the article they described security procedures that are already in place to prevent disclosure of confidential details by either detainees or their lawyers. There haven't been any breaches of this, and yet the government is already seeking to prevent detainees from discussing what happened to them while imprisoned. It just sounds a lot like they're trying to keep the details of what's going on in those prisons a secret from everyone to prevent reprisal against the government if they violate any treaty obligations the US is under on prisoner treatment.

I understand what you're saying. I really do and trust me, I hate the Bush administration as much as the next guy. I think I may just be losing my mind with the mid-term elections and everyone saying that the other side is destroying (or will destroy) America.

Such a cunning plan. Everyone interrorgated becomes in possession of classified information and so can have their access of normal legal procedures curtailed, if not their freedom. As that Canadian who was handed over to the Syrians found out.

I'm reading from the Washington Post:
"U.S. officials say Khan, a Pakistani national who lived in the United States for seven years, took orders from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mohammed allegedly asked Khan to research poisoning U.S. reservoirs and considered him for an operation to assassinate the Pakistani president."

This is really a tough time to live in... but I do think he is suspect terrorist.

It's a lot alike those movies about serial killers of people, and how the police step over the line to get information. Those make me uncomfortable.... but I've never been stalked by a serial murderer. Is that a reasonalbe analogy? I'm not as political as most.

i've had several friends and ex-Bushites tell me they completely changed their thinking upon reading Orwell and comparing it to what's going on these days. i've been thinking that producing thousands of simple black and white stickers with "1984" on them and just plastering them everywhere will get those, who are curious enough, to read it. people who've read it will know and think on it. people who haven't will get curious.

people have to make up their minds for themselves about that which they think is wrong. they way to do that is through inspiration. art, in the form of 1984, is inspiration.

C'mon. Did you believe the Washington/Cherry Tree story too? How about the one about Lincoln, his beard, and the little girl? Or that the Civil War was started because he freed the slaves?

Or, wait wait.. this one is my favorite.. that all men are created equal, truth, justice and all that?

If you really try to look at the history of our nation objectively, without ties to all the warm and fuzzy ideas we were indoctrinated with as kids, there are a few brutal truths:

This country was founded on the backs of slaves, and the genocide of Native people: and it recieved a huge economic boost because of it.

The mostly-well-to-do-if-not-rich, white, male founders of this nation didn't rebel against the crown because they were oppressed, they rebeled because they didn't want to pay taxes: and they recieved a huge economic boost because of it.

The declaration of independance was, at bottom, bullshit and rhetoric designed to make what was essentially a frivolous revolution (and a hard sell among the colonists) sound good.
From July 4th 1776, all the way to today, the leaders of this nation have been lying and spin-doctoring both their fellow countrymen, and other nations.

This isn't to say that all the founders were complete shit heels; they weren't. Well, some were. But there were a few honest men, that honestly were products of their time, and held all the prejudices one might expect of someone back then. They weren't extrordinary. Hell, some weren't even all that talented.

Close to death, Jefferson -- the most idealistic one of them all -- essentially recanted on the entire affair, saying that we were headed for hell in a handbasket.

Well, we've arrived.

Yeah so throw your own intergity out the door because you believe no one else had any ?
I'd like to cling to the vague belief in principals, virtue and integrity . Thank you .

and Santa, I'm not budging on Santa either.

I'd also like to hear more of this Jefferson recanting stuff. Whats this ? Sound suspiciously like the bs ID proponents spout about Darwin.