View Full Version : Trump Poised to Lift Ban on C.I.A. ‘Black Site’ Prisons
CaseyJones
01-25-2017, 10:10 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/cia-detainee-prisons.html
The Trump administration is preparing a sweeping executive order that would clear the way for the C.I.A. to reopen overseas “black site” prisons, like those where it detained and tortured terrorism suspects before former President Barack Obama shut them down.
President Trump’s three-page draft order, titled “Detention and Interrogation of Enemy Combatants” and obtained by The New York Times, would also undo many of the other restrictions on handling detainees that Mr. Obama put in place in response to policies of the Bush administration.
If Mr. Trump signs the draft order, he would also revoke Mr. Obama’s directive to give the International Committee of the Red Cross access to all detainees in American custody. That would be another step toward reopening secret prisons outside of the normal wartime rules established by the Geneva Conventions, although statutory obstacles would remain.
And while Mr. Obama tried to close the Guantánamo prison and refused to bring new detainees there, the draft order directs the Pentagon to continue using the facility “for the detention and trial of newly captured” detainees – including not just more suspected members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, like the 41 remaining detainees, but also Islamic State detainees. It does not address legal problems that might raise.
more at link
presence
01-25-2017, 10:15 AM
And when ISIS captures US soldiers and tortures them... they'll feel all the more justified and brazen.
jllundqu
01-25-2017, 11:16 AM
Trump promised to kill families of terrorists and bring back torture and waterboarding during the campaign....
ANOTHER CAMPAIGN PROMISE FULFILLED!!!!
#MAGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkKxO2WWIwE
timosman
01-25-2017, 11:18 AM
obtained by The New York Times
:confused: fake news?
bunklocoempire
01-25-2017, 11:21 AM
And while Mr. Obama tried to close the Guantánamo prison...
lol
Tro-bama, Hope and change 2.0
http://i.imgur.com/rlC6zxs.jpg
enhanced_deficit
01-25-2017, 11:50 PM
That might point to a policy shift that Trump would aim to capture suspected suspects alive unlike last DGP. Arrested suspects need prisons, drone bombed suspects need no prisons.
Lt Gen Flynn had opposed drone attacks; Flynn was fired by dronegangsta and is now part of team Trump.
https://matrixbob.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/drones-by-obama.jpg
Brian4Liberty
01-26-2017, 12:27 AM
:confused: fake news?
Maybe.
Mattis and Pompeo "blindsided" by black sites report
Defense Secretary James Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo were both "blindsided" on Wednesday by reports of a draft executive order that would walk back restrictions on torture and handling detainees, people close to the officials told Politico.
The document was published Wednesday by The New York Times and The Washington Post, and calls for the director of national intelligence to look into reopening the CIA's secret black site prisons, where brutal interrogations of terrorism suspects were carried out from 2001 to 2006. The draft order also would revoke an executive order signed by former President Barack Obama stating suspects must be treated in compliance with international law.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said he had "no idea where it came from" and it is "not a White House document." It is unclear who wrote the draft order or if President Trump will sign it, but lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have spoken out against it, including Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who said "the president can sign whatever executive order he likes. But the law is the law." Trump, who on Wednesday told ABC News he has been told torture "absolutely works," said he will defer to Mattis and Pompeo on the issue.
...
http://theweek.com/speedreads/675905/mattis-pompeo-blindsided-by-black-sites-report
824481447876710401
https://twitter.com/shaneharris/status/824481447876710401
dannno
01-26-2017, 12:29 AM
Trump promised to kill families of terrorists
Only if they are also terrorists.
juleswin
01-26-2017, 12:33 AM
Only if they are also terrorists.
Then why didn't he just say he wants to kill terrorists? why complicate the sentence by adding family members? And why are you doing an impression of a bad apologist for Trump on a libertarian forum?
dannno
01-26-2017, 01:01 AM
Then why didn't he just say he wants to kill terrorists? why complicate the sentence by adding family members? And why are you doing an impression of a bad apologist for Trump on a libertarian forum?
Huh?
No, I just heard what he said.
He said he was going to go after family members of terrorists. The reason he said that is because a lot of terrorist family members are culpable, and they should investigate, i.e., go after them.
At first he was less specific, then he clarified himself. It wasn't that he reversed his position, it was just a clarification. People tend to take statements that Trump makes that are not specific and make them out to be some fantasy fascist dictator thing and pretend they know what he is thinking.
Ender
01-26-2017, 01:11 AM
Huh?
No, I just heard what he said.
He said he was going to go after family members of terrorists. The reason he said that is because a lot of terrorist family members are culpable, and they should investigate, i.e., go after them.
At first he was less specific, then he clarified himself. It wasn't that he reversed his position, it was just a clarification. People tend to take statements that Trump makes that are not specific and make them out to be some fantasy fascist dictator thing and pretend they know what he is thinking.
The lovely Guilty Until Proven Innocent- Still not good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1eXRXL0nkk
dannno
01-26-2017, 01:31 AM
The lovely Guilty Until Proven Innocent- Still not good.
That's not true either. Investigating does not mean guilty until proven innocent.
Ender
01-26-2017, 01:56 AM
That's not true either. Investigating does not mean guilty until proven innocent.
In the video right above your post, Trump says specifically: "You have to take out their families...." Right around 1:42- very specific and is NOT talking about 'investigating'.
dannno
01-26-2017, 02:08 AM
In the video right above your post, Trump says specifically: "You have to take out their families...." Right around 1:42- very specific and is NOT talking about 'investigating'.
How do you know what he is talking about? I don't know if the interview cuts off their, or just the tube, but either way I'd like to get some clarification on what he meant.. Oh right, he already gave clarification on what he meant.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the interview before all of that was actually pretty good. If you take away the bombing ISIS part, Ron Paul could have given most of the rest of the interview and you wouldn't know it. But more specifically, RIGHT before he said he wanted to take out the terrorist families they asked about innocent civilian casualties and you could hear that he was starting to answer that question, and he began by saying that he would want to completely avoid/limit casualties of innocent civilians as much as possible. So how do you square that with what he said 10 seconds later about terrorist families? Well, you would have to ask him.. OH THAT'S RIGHT.. they already did.. but you don't want to listen, you just want to assume the worst.
https://i.imgur.com/mepKXop.jpg
dannno
01-26-2017, 02:18 AM
Whatever, if you wanna live in some stupid fairy tale land where you think Donald Trump said he wanted to limit innocent civilian casualties as much as possible, and then 10 seconds later you think he said he wants to kill a 4 year old and his pregnant mom because his dad joined ISIS, then you can live in that world. I'll stay here in reality where what he was actually talking about was going after the wife of the Orlando shooter who knew he was going to do it and was colluding with him at the time of the attack, and they barely investigated her until much later and she almost, or may end up getting away with it.
Living in reality, or CPUd's deluded universe is your decision.
Ender
01-26-2017, 02:22 AM
How do you know what he is talking about? I don't know if the interview cuts off their, or just the tube, but either way I'd like to get some clarification on what he meant.. Oh right, he already gave clarification on what he meant.
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the interview before all of that was actually pretty good. If you take away the bombing ISIS part, Ron Paul could have given most of the rest of the interview and you wouldn't know it. But more specifically, RIGHT before he said he wanted to take out the terrorist families they asked about innocent civilian casualties and you could hear that he was starting to answer that question, and he began by saying that he would want to completely avoid/limit casualties of innocent civilians as much as possible. So how do you square that with what he said 10 seconds later about terrorist families? Well, you would have to ask him.. OH THAT'S RIGHT.. they already did.. but you don't want to listen, you just want to assume the worst.
How much of:
"You have to take out their families- when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families, They- they care about their lives, don't kid yourselves. But they say they don't care about their lives- you have to take out their families."
- do you not understand?
dannno
01-26-2017, 02:24 AM
https://i.imgur.com/mepKXop.jpg
Do you realize that it is possible to make a single statement that has multiple meanings to different people, or even the same person can potentially come up with different meanings coming out of the same phrase?
A lot of Donald Trump's statements are like a Rorschach test, except the results tell you whether the listener is a leftist or a conservative.
69360
01-26-2017, 02:27 AM
None of you addressed the real issue. What do you do with these people when you capture them? Do you want them in the US?
dannno
01-26-2017, 02:28 AM
How much of:
"You have to take out their families- when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families, They- they care about their lives, don't kid yourselves. But they say they don't care about their lives- you have to take out their families."
- do you not understand?
I understand it since he clarified his statement, but if I hadn't heard the clarification then I would be wanting clarification to know exactly what he meant. He certainly never clarified it to mean that he wanted to kill every member of every family of every terrorist.
Ender
01-26-2017, 03:17 AM
I understand it since he clarified his statement, but if I hadn't heard the clarification then I would be wanting clarification to know exactly what he meant. He certainly never clarified it to mean that he wanted to kill every member of every family of every terrorist.
Show me the clarification.
staerker
01-26-2017, 08:36 AM
Whatever, if you wanna live in some stupid fairy tale land where you think Donald Trump said he wanted to limit innocent civilian casualties as much as possible, and then 10 seconds later you think he said he wants to kill a 4 year old and his pregnant mom because his dad joined ISIS, then you can live in that world. I'll stay here in reality where what he was actually talking about was going after the wife of the Orlando shooter who knew he was going to do it and was colluding with him at the time of the attack, and they barely investigated her until much later and she almost, or may end up getting away with it.
Living in reality, or CPUd's deluded universe is your decision.
One can understand that Trump is not a libertarian idol, and simultaneously understand that not everything Trump does is evil.
Some on this forum are so driven by this collectivist, libertarian vs evil, ideology, that defending truth by being intellectually honest makes you evil.
Some would believe that I am "pro-Trump," whereas all I have been re: Trump has been against demonstrable fake news lies.
Brian4Liberty
01-26-2017, 09:22 AM
None of you addressed the real issue. What do you do with these people when you capture them? Do you want them in the US?
That ambiguity is intentional. If there was a legal declaration of war, it would be obvious. So the relevant question is where do you house POWs? Answer: anywhere you can. But what they are intentionally avoiding is that the POWs would fall under the Geneva Convention, and torture is not allowed.
If, on the other hand, there is no declared war, then they are international criminals (if they are killing people).
What we have now is endless, undefined, military conflict, and that results in all kinds of collateral ambiguity.
undergroundrr
01-26-2017, 09:47 AM
I think it was determined in a previous thread that he wanted to take out their families to dinner. Can we just move on?
Brian4Liberty
01-26-2017, 10:07 AM
No new info yet. Here's some opinion...
...
But before we cue the outrage, it might be wise to view these developments not so much as a return to the early days of the war on terrorism, but as an example of Trump's style of governance by misdirection. Even if Trump believes today that waterboarding and other kinds of enhanced interrogation are effective, as he told ABC News Wednesday, he will have a very hard time reinstating it.
To start, it's illegal under U.S. law. And the draft executive order makes sure to say that any interrogations must be within the boundaries of the law. Trump acknowledged this as well in his interview with ABC News.
It's also politically impractical. The draft executive order has drawn fire from members of both parties. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Wednesday he would do everything within his power to stop any government steps to revive the CIA's enhanced interrogation program. John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that the law of the land prohibits torture, regardless of any executive orders signed by Trump.
What's more, current and former CIA officers have said they would not want to revive the program. It was such a mess for the agency that to this day, human rights groups have called for international prosecutions of senior officials who authorized it. CIA officers in the 2000s had to take out insurance policies in case they were sued in international or domestic courts.
No wonder White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Wednesday that the draft order was not a "White House document."
That said, there is a more pernicious reason that the CIA will not likely be reopening its black site prisons. It's called "extraordinary rendition." This is the practice of letting third countries interrogate detainees for the U.S. It is a murky area when compared to the CIA's own interrogation and detention practices, which were detailed in a nonclassified report by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee. There has been no such transparency when it comes to human rights abuses by U.S. counterterrorism partners.
President Bill Clinton approved extraordinary rendition in rare instances. In 1995, for example, the U.S. sent a cell of Bosnian suspected terrorists to Egypt, where, according to their lawyer, they faced torture.
George W. Bush expanded the practice. The Senate report on the CIA program goes through numerous examples in which suspects were shuttled from CIA black sites to prisons in countries such as Pakistan and Morocco, though it's silent on how they were interrogated in these foreign jails.
Barack Obama also sent prisoners to third-world prisons, though there is no public evidence that the suspects were tortured. In 2012, I visited a foul prison in the Puntland region of Somalia that had accepted 16 people captured by the U.S. since 2009. The prison was unsanitary and lacked running water. Some inmates complained of beatings from the guards.
...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-26/why-trump-won-t-reopen-the-cia-s-black-sites
Got to love the spin. With Bush, they were "silent" about torture. With Obama, there is "no public evidence". :rolleyes:
CaptUSA
01-26-2017, 10:11 AM
A lot of Donald Trump's statements are like a Rorschach test, except the results tell you whether the listener is a leftist or a conservative.
What a bunch of hogwash. They may be a Rorschach test, but the results tell you whether you want to believe the best in Trump or whether you want to hold him to the same standard that you'd use for any other self-interested politician.
Seriously, Danno. If you heard Trump's words coming from Bush, McCain, or Obama, you'd be apoplectic! "Oh, but they clarified it after people reacted to what they said..." Gimme a break.
I understand it since he clarified his statement, but if I hadn't heard the clarification then I would be wanting clarification to know exactly what he meant. He certainly never clarified it to mean that he wanted to kill every member of every family of every terrorist.
He said the terrorists use human shields. Does this mean Donald wants to investigate the human shields when he says we have to take them out?
jllundqu
01-26-2017, 10:23 AM
What a bunch of hogwash. They may be a Rorschach test, but the results tell you whether you want to believe the best in Trump or whether you want to hold him to the same standard that you'd use for any other self-interested politician.
Seriously, Danno. If you heard Trump's words coming from Bush, McCain, or Obama, you'd be apoplectic! "Oh, but they clarified it after people reacted to what they said..." Gimme a break.
This.
timosman
01-26-2017, 10:29 AM
What we have now is endless, undefined, military conflict, and that results in all kinds of collateral ambiguity.
Nah, it is called bonanza.:cool:
timosman
01-26-2017, 10:31 AM
He said the terrorists use human shields. Does this mean Donald wants to investigate the human shields when he says we have to take them out?
An excellent question. Where did you pull it from?:rolleyes:
spudea
01-26-2017, 10:41 AM
824481447876710401
https://twitter.com/shaneharris/status/824481447876710401
Anonymous US official.... Who's the real Baghdad Bob here?
Brian4Liberty
01-26-2017, 10:52 AM
I think it was determined in a previous thread that he wanted to take out their families to dinner....
Only the beautiful, younger females...
timosman
01-26-2017, 10:57 AM
Anonymous US official.... Who's the real Baghdad Bob here?
but what if it was true?:eek:
timosman
01-26-2017, 10:58 AM
Only the beautiful, younger females...
What are we talking about now?:rolleyes:
William Tell
01-26-2017, 12:18 PM
:confused: fake news?
If only the Obama supporters had thought of that term 8 years ago. They could have said Obama had really ended all the wars, earned his peace prize, and the media is lying saying we are still in the middle east.
dannno
01-26-2017, 01:17 PM
Show me the clarification.
It was in the first 10 or 15 minutes of the video that I posted in the thread I created on this very topic long, long ago.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496124-Stefan-Molyneux-Defends-Trump-on-quot-Terrorist-families-quot-Remark-and-Others
Ender
01-26-2017, 01:31 PM
It was in the first 10 or 15 minutes of the video that I posted in the thread I created on this very topic long, long ago.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496124-Stefan-Molyneux-Defends-Trump-on-quot-Terrorist-families-quot-Remark-and-Others
That is THE WORST bullshit I have ever heard and totally supports going after terrorists families- cutting off body parts and sending them to said terrorists etc. Molyneux even blames parents and says they are responsible for terrorist behavior.
I cannot and WILL NOT support this fucking shit and especially against people the US has purposely radicalized.
If people here support this it won't be long before American citizens are on the terrorist list and their families are killed/mutilated at .gov's will.
I stand with Ron Paul.
Jamesiv1
01-26-2017, 02:46 PM
What a bunch of hogwash. They may be a Rorschach test, but the results tell you whether you want to believe the best in Trump or whether you want to hold him to the same standard that you'd use for any other self-interested politician.
Seriously, Danno. If you heard Trump's words coming from Bush, McCain, or Obama, you'd be apoplectic! "Oh, but they clarified it after people reacted to what they said..." Gimme a break.
You sir, are no lover of liberty.
#MAGA
dannno
01-26-2017, 07:30 PM
That is THE WORST bullshit I have ever heard and totally supports going after terrorists families- cutting off body parts and sending them to said terrorists etc. Molyneux even blames parents and says they are responsible for terrorist behavior.
I cannot and WILL NOT support this fucking shit and especially against people the US has purposely radicalized.
If people here support this it won't be long before American citizens are on the terrorist list and their families are killed/mutilated at .gov's will.
I stand with Ron Paul.
lol, nobody including Donald Trump, Molyneux or certainly myself or anybody in this entire realm of discussion supports cutting off body parts and sending them to terrorists. I honestly don't know where you come up with this stuff. You always take things way out of context and exaggerate them. I think it's the way you listen to things, you are looking for somebody to say something wrong and call them out on being anti-liberty rather than understand what they are trying to say.
I do recall Stef discussing such things, but not supporting them. You might even be able to post a quote out of context to try and prove me wrong, but anybody who listens to the entire discussion (keyword: listens) will understand what you are saying is entirely inaccurate. You have to have more patience when you listen.
Ender
01-26-2017, 07:41 PM
lol, nobody including Donald Trump, Molyneux or certainly myself or anybody in this entire realm of discussion supports cutting off body parts and sending them to terrorists. I honestly don't know where you come up with this stuff. You always take things way out of context and exaggerate them. I think it's the way you listen to things, you are looking for somebody to say something wrong and call them out on being anti-liberty rather than understand what they are trying to say.
I do recall Stef discussing such things, but not supporting them. You might even be able to post a quote out of context to try and prove me wrong, but anybody who listens to the entire discussion (keyword: listens) will understand what you are saying is entirely inaccurate. You have to have more patience when you listen.
LOL Backatcha- I know how to listen. :o
If Stef or Trump says it, then they didn't really mean it and we need wonderful interpreters to tell us what they REALLY meant.
What planet am I on? :eek:
dannno
01-26-2017, 08:13 PM
LOL Backatcha- I know how to listen. :o
If Stef or Trump says it, then they didn't really mean it and we need wonderful interpreters to tell us what they REALLY meant.
What planet am I on? :eek:
I don't know, but I'm on the planet where Stef specifically explained how opposed to all of that he was, and you are on some planet where he never said that and you are insinuating he has a bunch of beliefs that he does NOT hold because you don't listen well. That sounds like a pretty weird planet.
Ender
01-26-2017, 09:47 PM
I don't know, but I'm on the planet where Stef specifically explained how opposed to all of that he was, and you are on some planet where he never said that and you are insinuating he has a bunch of beliefs that he does NOT hold because you don't listen well. That sounds like a pretty weird planet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8jrhtPz2Ac
undergroundrr
01-27-2017, 10:27 AM
It was in the first 10 or 15 minutes of the video that I posted in the thread I created on this very topic long, long ago.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496124-Stefan-Molyneux-Defends-Trump-on-quot-Terrorist-families-quot-Remark-and-Others
Yeah, that was a real winner of a thread, dannno. I'm glad Molyneux's thoughtful discussion of all sides of the issue spoke to you in such a deep way. Please, everybody check out that Molyneux talk for a great example of a reasoned justification of torturing innocent people. Dr. Paul might well reconsider his position after this pithy, well-researched, evidence-packed ball of wisdom.
824457832363732993
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/824457832363732993
undergroundrr
01-27-2017, 10:47 AM
Here's what the Kochtopus cuck Rand Paul has to say:
http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/26/bravo-to-rand-paul-for-saying-president
Bravo to Rand Paul for Saying President Trump Is Wrong, Torture Doesn't Work
'It’s currently against the law and I hope it will remain against the law.'
Robby Soave|Jan. 26, 2017 5:29 pm
Sen. Rand Paul stridently rejected the notion that American intelligence officials should resume the use of torture on detained combatants—something President Trump favors.
Trump recently declared that torture "absolutely works," and U.S. officials should use any and all legal means to extract intelligence.
Paul took the opposite view, telling CNN's Jake Tapper that "it's currently against the law and I hope it will remain against the law."
He pointed out that incoming Defense Secretary James Mattis is also against torture and believes that it doesn't work. He also argued that U.S. intelligence officials have previously detained the wrong people, casting additional doubt on the idea that enhanced interrogation methods were justified.
"The CIA detained 119 people, 39 of them were tortured, and the conclusion of the Senate committee's report was that it didn't work, but there was also something very alarming," said Paul. "Of the 119 people that the CIA detained around the world, 26 of them were mistakenly identified, sometimes with people who had similar names, but they detained the wrong people. I think most Americans would be alarmed if 22 percent of the people we picked up and tortured were the wrong people."
Paul went on to say that Mike Pompeo's support for torture was one of the reasons he voted against his confirmation as CIA director.
Watch the full video here, via Mediate.
Paul is one of just a handful of people in Congress consistently representing the interests of Americans who are concerned about big government, no matter which team is running the government. He has supported Trump on the (rare) occasions that Trump has staked out a libertarian position on an issue, but is not afraid to go against the president.
If more Congressional Republicans were as principled as Paul, they would actually have the numbers to force Trump to hew closer to the Constitution.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.