IdleWords[/url]"][size=18]Secret CIA Prisons in Poland?[/size]Yesterday's [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR200511... Post ran an enigmatic article[/url] about secret, extralegal CIA prisons, including the tantalizing mention of prisons in "eastern european democracies". Washington Post reporter Dana Priest knows the specific countries in question, but the paper is refusing to divulge the names at the request of the American government, which claims that this would compromise security.
Reading this over, I thought that the only reason that could make the Washington Post so jumpy would be if one or more of those countries were in the EU, and today's press confirms my worst suspicions, alleging that the countries in question are Poland and Romania.
The Polish press has some more details. Apparently the organization Human Rights Watch has heen monitoring flights of a Boeing 737 presumed to be owned by the CIA (tail number N313P). The plane is unmarked, but tends to show up in some interesting places. According to the Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland's main daily:
"The plane had allegedly landed on September 22, 203 in the small airport at Szymana, near Szczytno, after a flight from Kabul.
This private plane belonging to an American transport company has been showing up over the past couple of years in media reports on secret CIA operations all around the world. Two months ago, Czech media reported that on September 21, 2003, a day before the flight to Poland, the Boeing had flown out of Prague to Uzbekistan, where, experts claim, prisoners are being held in American military bases.
The US government does not confirm that the CIA uses this Boeing and a second, smaller aircraft to transport prisoners. But the flight records reported in the media indicate that the Boeing was in Macedonia in 2004 on the same day that a suspected al-Qaeda member was arrested there. He later ended up in a jail in Afghanistan, which is where that mysterious plane from Macedonia flew the very same day"The article goes on to quote representatives from Poland's various secret services, who vigorously deny the possibility that CIA prisoners are being held on Polish territory.
Intriguingly, it seems the Czechs had recently turned down an American request to house Guantanamo prisoners. The Czech interior minister, František Bublan, is quoted as saying that in an interview for the Czech aktualne.cz, but will not go into details, except to say that the Czechs refused the request, and it was presumably honored elsewhere.
If it is confirmed that American secret prisons are operating or have operated in Poland, it will lead to a major confrontation with the European Union. I would hope it would also lead to more pressure from the American side to find out what exactly we are doing holding prisoners in indefinite detention outside the legal system.
There's an almost absurdist irony to the situation. The reason Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe are so unabashedly pro-American is that for fifty years, America stood for the antithesis of this kind of behavior. Poles knew full well about secret prisons, torture, incarceration without trial, and secret services that operate outside the law, and they looked to the United States as a society that stood against this kind of arbitrary exercise of state power.
Fifteen years later, we have television shots of Polish and American generals standing side by side in in fraternal solidarity in Iraq, and now perhaps hosting a special little Polish branch of an American secret prison system. There's a déjà vu to this that I hope other Poles will find as upsetting as I do. And I get to feel the shame from both directions, since my adopted country is colluding with my native one to break the laws of both.
[url=http://www.idlewords.com/2005/11/secret_cia_prisons_in_poland.htm]IdleWo...
rank hypocrisy is rife in the modern world.
bump.
Not suer why noone has commented on this.
It is a defeat of democracy, law and order and any civilised values.
It exposes everyone involved as hypocrites.
Or is it that it was just something everyone suspected?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Original Washington Post Article (as linked to in quote of first post):
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
That's it.
amazing.
those who pride themselves as being part of the 'free' and developed world, allowing 'freedom' are the ones locking others up indefinately.
i dont care if this is so common that no one bats an eye lid when it happens - it is an injustice.
why is it happening? why is it being kept undercover?
admin- how well know is this case? and do you know if any 'authorities' not linked to america are doing anything about it?
correct me if im wrong, but this is very disturbing. this quote is from the above article with points highlighted which worry me:
The [b]CIA[/b] and the [b]White House[/b], citing national security concerns and the [b]value of the program[/b], have [u]dissuaded [/u]Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held.
Virtually nothing is known about [b]who [/b]is kept in the facilities, what [b]interrogation methods [/b]are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or [b]for how long[/b].
this program, which we know nothing about is being undertaken without our knowledge.
it may be true that their captives are guilty, but do the laws on human rights mean nothing?
what gives the authorities the right to torture, punish and keep detainees in a way which would make yr skin crawl?
and as it is all undercover, we may never know the extent of what is actually happening there.
So basically she has confirmed their presence by telling the EU to 'Back Off'.
I do not see the diference here between the US and other desotic regimes. Apart from in other regimes the secret prisons are for their own citizens, and in theire own country, whilst these are for foriegners, and kept outside US jurisdiction.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
America is dirty end of.
It needs to be run by the true Americans, not bitter old men (and women) who need another cold war to remind them they matter.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
Just ask yourself if you would allow a member of your family be treated like this:
BBC Analysis, by Paul Reynolds, World Affairs correspondent
[b]The defining of torture in a new world war [/b]
BBC - 5 December 2005
The US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's defence of the practice of transferring prisoners around the world for interrogation relies a great deal on a definition of torture.
In the US view, torture has to involve "severe pain" and harsh interrogations do not necessarily amount to torture.
Ms Rice accepted that prisoner transfers, known as "renditions", take place and said they were not unusual. The French had moved Carlos the Jackal directly from Sudan that way in 1994, she pointed out.
She did not adddress the issue of where these prisoners, thought to be senior al-Qaeda suspects like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the man who thought up the attacks of 9/11, end up. The Washington Post has alleged that there are or have been secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Thailand. By being located outside the US, they would avoid coming under the scrutiny of US courts.
But as she set off a European visit during which the rendition flights and the ultimate aim of such flights will be a key issue, the Secretary of State stressed several times that the United States did not engage in torture.
And it is really the torture issue which is the key. If the flights were simply for the purpose of moving prisoners between open court systems, nobody would complain.
It is the idea that they are tortured in secret detention camps that has concerned critics and has forced Ms Rice to issue her statement.
[b]The UN Convention on Torture [/b]
The United States acted, she said, in accordance with its legal obligations, among which is the 1984 UN "Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This defines torture as follows: "Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind..."
[b]Defining 'severe' [/b]
It will be seen that a lot depends on the definition of "severe." In a memorandum on 1 August 2002, the then Assistant US Attorney General Jay Bybee said that "the adjective severe conveys that the pain or suffering must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure." He even suggested that "severe pain" must be severe enough to result in organ failure death.
Such an interpretation would obviously leave an interrogator a great deal of latitude, and that memo was subsequently disowned by the Bush administration.
What seems to have evolved is a series of interrogation techniques which in the US view do not amount to torture as defined by the UN Convention but which go beyond the simple business of asking questions.
Recent reports on the American ABC News network, quoting CIA sources, listed six so-called "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques."
1. Grab: the interrogator grabs a suspect's shirt front and shakes him.
2. Slap: an open-handed slap to produce fear and some pain.
3. Belly Slap: a hard slap to the stomach with an open hand. This is designed to be painful but not to cause injury. A punch is said to have been ruled out by doctors.
4. Standing: Prisoners stand for 40 hours and more, shackled to the floor. Said to be effective, it also denies them sleep and is part of a process known as sensory deprivation ( this was a technique used by British forces in Northern Ireland for a time until it was stopped).
5. Cold Cell: a prisoner is made to stand naked in a cold, though not freezing, cell and doused with water.
6. Water Boarding: the prisoner is bound to a board with feet raised, and cellophane wrapped round his head. Water is poured onto his face and is said to produce a fear of drowning which leads to a rapid demand for the suffering to end.
[b]The McCain amendment [/b]
Some or all of these techniques might be outlawed if the US Senate has its way. The Senate has approved by 90 to 9 a measure outlawing "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment."
Again, much depends on definitions but President Bush apparently feels that McCain's amendment would prevent the CIA from carrying out "enhanced" interrogation. He is threatening to veto the Bill onto which this prohibition has been tacked as an amendment. The White House and McCain, a former pilot who was himself tortured by the North Vietnamese, are trying to reach a compromise.
Senator McCain has written against any ill-treatment of prisoners: "We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear - whether it is true or false - if he believes it will relieve his suffering," he said in an article in Newsweek.
He is particularly against "waterboarding". "I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture," he said.
But the administration clearly feels that the CIA's hands should not be tied too tightly.
Stephen Hadley, the US National Security Adviser, has spoken of the dilemma faced by governments which say they abide by the rule of law yet which need to get information to save lives. "The president has said that we are going to do whatever we do in accordance with the law. But you see the dilemma. What happens if on September 7th 2001, we had gotten one of the hijackers and based on information associated with that arrest, believed that within four days, there's going to be a devastating attack on the United States?"
One very grey area of the rendition policy is that sometimes a prisoner is handed over secretly to a country which itself carries out the interrogation. Such a country might not be so particular as to the methods used.
There is a view among some lawyers that the US would violate international law if it knew of such practices by governments to which it hands over suspects.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4499528.stm
More torture links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4439850.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4523825.stm
According to newsnight last night, the UK is unsurprisingly complicit in this.
there are supposed to be secret 'non-torture torture' interrogations being taken place in secret locations around london!
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Salam
Boss. Great Britian does not torture muslims like the CIA does.
Her Majesty The Queen does not permit prisoners to be treated barbarically.
UK does not follow same practices as the US.
Are you sure you were not watching Broken News at 9:30.
Very funny.
Omrow
Omrwo, will you just stop going on about the f-ing queen so much!
The Americans call it freedom tickling.
[size=5]Damn. I missed Broken News. [/size]
Wel condy had an exclusive interview with Sky news on tuesday...
1. She did not deny the secret prisons.
2. She stressed the importance of protecting innocent civilians from the suspects who were the worst of the bad or summat like it. They said same thing about guantanamo before it was found out they were holding people as young as 12 there...
3. She stressed they did not break US law. Ofcourse they didn't. US law applies in the US d'oh!
guilty as sin.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
[b]US bound by torture treaty - Rice [/b]
BBC - 7 December 2005
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the UN Convention against Torture applies to American interrogators working both in the US and overseas.
Her comments follow confusion about the US stance on a treaty which bans cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
The Bush administration has previously said the convention does not apply to US personnel working overseas.
Ms Rice's European tour has been dogged by claims the CIA used foreign bases to transport and hold terror suspects.
The UN Convention against Torture (CAT) "extends to US personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the US or outside the US," Ms Rice said in Ukraine.
Her comments appear to contrast with the US Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, who said last year the convention did not apply to US interrogations of foreigners overseas.
[b]UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment[/b]
...
[deleted by admin, as Omrow has reposted it in post below.]
The UDHR is the first international statement to use the term "human rights", and has been adopted by the Human Rights movement as a charter. It is short, and worth reading in its entirety -- a summary would be about as long as the document itself.
[b]UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS[/b]
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair, and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15
Everyone has the right to a nationality.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17
Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23
Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27
Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29
Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
lol thankyou for the coursework notes Omrow!!
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
Salam
The issue of torturing the muslims is going to come back and haunt America just as murdering the Jews has come back to haunt the Germans.
Do they really think that western historians will somehow forget about the policies of the present US administration.
It would reflect badly on the image that history will paint.
Omrow
The victors write history.
History will portray what the winning side wants it to portray.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Is kidnap not a criminal offence?
I would love to see the Germans try to indict the CIA.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Not if the US does it.
Salam
Holding a terrorist is not a kidnap. It is an arrest.
Big difference.
Omrow
Same with the death penalty though, what if you get the wrong man?
Most victims of torture say, they would admit to anything if it stopped the torture.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
Salam
It is better that a hundred guilty men walk free than one innocent man hang.
True Justice does more to protect the innocent than to punish the guilty.
That is God's Religion.
Omrow
I am confused by muslims when they criticise the US for having the death penalty - when Shariah also allows it.
In fact from what I have read our check against it is far more secure than that which was outlined by Shariah.
Four witnesses right?
It is an arrest if someobody is held by the authorities and due process applies.
It is kidnap if someone is held without being given any rights and without due process.
Due process isn't extended to non-americans under the constitution, and as far as I know the US isn't party to any international legal institutions that could provide the process "due"
The trouble isn't what we do with our own citizens that's pretty clear cut - the trouble comes from foreign citizens.
And as long as extradition orders are officialized we have fulfilled our legal obligations for capturing the suspect.
If there's no extradition process then that's kidnap, right?
CIA can't just pick someone up from, say, Oxford Street, push him into the back of a car, put him on a private plane, take him to Egypt and torture him.
Yes that's correct.
ohhhhh I see what you were saying now. I've had my head buried in the 14th Amendment for the last several days you'll have to excuse me.
Yes, there must be a "due process" by which the person is given some sort of systematic opportunity to interact with government that he knows is due to him.
Dave.
Would it be possible for me to take a look at one of you're essays?
I'm sure I could learn alot from your style of writing etc.
Pages