GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - Interesting BBC story

- Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)

- - Interesting BBC story - is this what is going to break Bush? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=547564)

Interesting BBC story - is this what is going to break Bush?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4494246.stm

I wonder what Condi will have to say on Monday.....

Quote:

US civil rights group to sue CIA

Reports claim al-Qaeda members are being held in clandestine jails
A US civil rights groups says it is taking the CIA to court to stop the transportation of terror suspects to countries outside US legal authority.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the intelligence agency has broken both US and international law.

It is acting for a man allegedly flown to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she'll comment on recent reports of alleged CIA prisons abroad before starting a visit to Europe on Monday.

Ms Rice has said she will provide an answer to a EU letter expressing concern over reports last month alleging the US intelligence agency was using secret jails - particularly in eastern Europe.

'Extraordinary rendition'

"The lawsuit will charge that CIA officials at the highest level violated US and universal human rights laws when they authorised agents to abduct an innocent man, detain him incommunicado, beat him, drug and transport him to a secret CIA prison in Afghanistan," the ACLU said in a news release.

The release identified the jail as the "Salt Pit".

The group did not provide the name or nationality of the plaintiff, saying only that he would appear at a news conference next week to reveal details of the lawsuit.

The ACLU also wants to name corporations which it accuses of owning and operating the aircraft used to transport detainees secretly from country to country.

The highly secretive process is known as "extraordinary rendition" whereby intelligence agencies move and interrogate terrorism suspects outside the US, where they have no American legal protection.

It has become extremely controversial, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington reports.

Some individuals have claimed they were flown by the CIA to countries like Syria and Egypt, where they were tortured.

The US government and its intelligence agencies maintain that all their operations are conducted within the law and they will no doubt fight this case vigorously, our correspondent says.

He says they will not want to see US intelligence officers forced publicly to defend their actions and they will not want to see one of their most secret procedures laid bare in open court.

break Bush? are you that ignorant? fuck the al-queda

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

break Bush? are you that ignorant? fuck the al-queda

If they have to start answering questions then it will grow and grow - This alone wont do it - but it has the potential to open up other areas of questioning that could finish him off. Pandora's Box........

Quote:

Originally Posted by damian2001

Your "Drunk in England" is suddenly making sense.

the more clandestine jails to torture them the better - glad to see the CIA is back to its nasty ways.

or London . . . same diff, you must be drunk if you think anything is going to happen to Bush before his term ends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

the more clandestine jails to torture them the better - glad to see the CIA is back to its nasty ways.

no doubt

too bad they aren't better at being clandestine though. You can tell they are out of practice.

http://www.g006le.com/TinFoilHatArea.jpg

so you really think the ACLU has a branch office in Afghanistan?
and a guy who was held in a "secret" prison is out walking the streets?

LMAO!
:1orglaugh

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

you must be drunk if you think anything is going to happen to Bush before his term ends.

That Im afraid is a fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

too bad they aren't better at being clandestine though. You can tell they are out of practice.

If its all ok why do they have to be clandestine at all?

Why dont they just flogg these guys in the middle of Times Square?

oh yeah - because people realised it was wrong and made it illegal.

Anyway, the right and wrongs of torture arnt really the point - the point is the last thing bush, CIA etc etc want is for anyone to start digging and asking questions. One thing has a habit of leading to another...........

Do you believe the US is being too tough on the terrorists?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Do you believe the US is being too tough on the terrorists?

This isnt really the point of the thread - but the people they are doing this to havnt been tried and convicted of anything.

If they are proven to be terrorists then go ahead and do what you like, Ill come along and rip out a few fingure nails myself...... otherwise live by the rules, we are the first to complain when other countries break them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

Do you believe the US is being too tough on the terrorists?

The CIA and Government must think you are, otherwise why keep it a secret?

Quote:

Originally Posted by damian2001

How are we going to prove they are terrorists if we don't rip out a few fingernails? You think they wear a wristband or something?

This isn't Internext where everyone is wearing a pass.

We may see the ACLU become a thing of the past.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johny Traffic

The CIA and Government must think you are, otherwise why keep it a secret?

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

True!! What happened to all the moral values, justice, democracy and all these "used words"?

The ACLU is your best friend if you happen to be a terrorist, child molester, or atheist. :321GFY

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

We may see the ACLU become a thing of the past.

:1orglaugh Same with the International Criminal Court! :thumbsup

There is good reason why the current Admin found difficulty in agreeing to the basic criteria that war crimes should be prosecuted.

They tried three (or may have been four times) to come up with excuses as the why they could not agree. The first two or three times were so pathetic, they just were not credible.

Eventually, they stuck with some crap about "protecting our troops at times of war". The ICC is known for running after fighting troops for war crimes - not! But.. they may go after "rogue regimes" - some call it covering one's ass. :winkwink: