This is not the America I believe inFollow

Which doesn't answer my question at all. You said they were wrong and guilty. But the only way to be "proven" wrong or guilty legally is through the legal system. Without going through the legal system, what you're saying is not correct.

This isn't a prisoner. This is a man we tortured and released without ever telling him what he'd done. If we didn't want to be here, making this decision, we should have thought of that before we took the first step down this road.



Why? They aren't that important. They're insignificant in the face of our barbarism. In any event, I think I'll just direct your dumb fUcking *** to the first post in the thread:



It's about our need to forget the atrocities we've committed, not ensuring our security. Not protecting Top Sekret Infoz.



The man they abducted, then tortured, and finally released isn't bound to our military's codes of conduct. Supposedly that's why it was okay to torture him, too. And I don't think the government will ever attempt to indemnify these people in any way, because the government is full of politicians, and thus whores. Whores don't do things to make their Johns feel guilty, like admitting that torturing innocents was the wrong thing to do.

And seriously, security clearance is meaningless. I've have clearances granted to me as a contract worker. I've been to NORAD, and I've never been an enlisted man. People who want to, already know our secrets. It's the voting public who really doesn't want to know these particular secrets, and lucky for them, they'll never have to.

We already have FISA courts, for example, and there is no need for that to be public to achieve justice.

What I am saying is that there is no case in which you can ignore or route around them. If the attorney general simply cannot personally sign all the forms, he or she goes to congress and explains the situation and gets whatever resources are needed (other designated signers, or more FISA courts if they are too slow, etc).

This is the opposite of what has happened.

So you agree the court was wrong to refuse to take this case even using only public information?

I'd need to read the actual court ruling, and not the NYT writers take on that ruling. I think that the point the court was making wasn't that a case in which all the facts were public information would still be dismissed, but that allowing the plaintiff to proceed while the defense can't defend itself because it would have to reveal classified information in order to do so would be unfair to the defense and the case should be dismissed.

Perhaps you don't understand the comcept of burden of proof on the accuser. But if you did you'd understand why you are so ******* wrong.

No, let's get this real straight, *****Ucker:

I'm saying, when we accidentally torture the wrong guy for five years, he should be allowed to present his case for the purposes of seeking indemnification, although I can't fathom a way to make a man whole again after such an ordeal. These aren't allegations based on allegations, these are people wanting recompense for being abducted, tortured and imprisoned by our government. We admit we did it, that means it is no longer an allegation.

You're being entirely intellectually dishonest, as usual. Today you are endorsing government practices which grant the state unlimited power, because the alternative is to admit it was a bad idea to do this to other humans, regardless of their nationality, hue or religion. Your endorsing systemic disregard for human rights, because your guy implemented the system.



At this rate, I reckon you're right. In fifty years, we'll probably all have torture-chambers in our basements for neighborhood security.



There isn't a big deal being made of this. There should be, because it undermines everything we're supposed to stand for. It devalues the lives of every American soldier killed as they "fight for our freedom". It hands another victory to terror. People ***** about longer waits at the airport, but no one ******* about this, because we don't fUcking care.

Were either instrumental in him being tortured? Sounds like a question to be decided by the cou--- oh, wait.

Nevermind, I guess.

This is gonna sound really awkward, but...


I'm in total agreement with BT on this one. The guy deserves his day in court. Any attempt to deny him that right, even in the name of "national security" is pathetic and inexcusable.

And what are you being? Honest? Lol!



I'm not. The individual does not have the right to demand that classified information be released simply so that he can proceed with a lawsuit. Your rights end at the point that they put the rest of us in danger.



No. I'm very much aware of the precedent that forcing the government to reveal classified data or admit guilt to any allegation leveled at them when have. It would be a disaster.



No. Because I realize that our government didn't torture any of the plaintiffs in this case. I know you want to play footsie with this and tap dance around it, but that is the fact in this case. No one is alleging that the US government tortured those plaintiffs. They transported them from one country to another and handed them over to legal authorities in the countries they delivered them to. What are we supposed to do? Invade those countries as well as Iraq because we don't agree with their legal systems? It's funny how some people constantly complain about how other people in other parts of the world treat people, but then are the first to scream when anyone actually tries to do anything about it.

At a point, it just becomes childish complaining. The world is not a perfect place. You are not a unique snowflake. Sometimes, "bad things" are going to happen to people. I'm vastly more concerned about all the assaults and crimes committed against law abiding citizens here in the US every single day then I am about a few foreigners who were caught up in an anti-terrorist operation. Maybe that's selfish off me, or nation-centric, or whatever you want to call it, but in the grand scheme of "crap happens" it seems like you've gone well beyond throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



And yet, it's not my political party which is refusing to do what you want them to do. Seriously. Get a grip man. When both the Dems and the GOP think you're nutty, it might just be true...

No. Knowing damn well that those countries don't have the same legal protections for prisoners and criminals as we do. By that logic, the US should never allow extradition to any country in the world, since they pretty much *all* have fewer protections and rights for people charged with crimes than we do. Strangely, we do extradite people to other countries all the time.

You're cherry picking these cases and these individuals.



I've never watched a single episode. I suspect that it's those who assume that our government engages in habitual torture of prisoners who might just have watched a few to many episodes of that show.



BT has said nothing of worth at all. He's just repeated the same tired complaints, while adding not a single bit of logic or reason into the debate. And when he realizes that crying about the unfairness of the laws in the US isn't really proving his point, he resorts to that time honored tradition of personal attacks. Because I just love being accused of liking torture because I refuse to assign blame to an airline hired to fly planes to conduct legal transport of prisoners by our government on the grounds that since those people were later mistreated by yet another government, our government not only knew this would happen, but somehow planned to have it happen, and thus is culpable, and furthermore that those poor saps they contracted to fly the plane must have been in on the plot as well!

And you don't think that's a bit of a stretch? I've heard alien conspiracy theories with more solid and reasonable logic than this one.

Says you. Forgive me if I don't fall over myself assuming that the conspiracy theorists got this one right, but are still wrong about Elvis and JFK.



Rendition is a form of extradition and the terms are often used interchangeably. You're correct that I should have used the term "rendition", however the same nutters who have hammed up the "OMG! The US is torturing everyone!" have turned that term into an assumption of "prisoner transfer for the purpose or torture". I'd prefer not to play word games here.

It's a prisoner transfer. It's done for any of a number of reasons and it's done with the cooperation and knowledge of the governments involved. It's "legal". It's just not advertised in the newspaper. Remember, "secret" doesn't mean "illegal".



Different countries have different extradition policies and agreements. It's not that cut and dried.



The only real difference was secrecy. Which is necessary when the people you are transporting are believed to hold national security level information or be involved in significantly dangerous plots. You're free to speculate that this automatically means that said secrecy was used to torture people, but I'm not willing to make that assumption. And I'm certainly not going to support a lawsuit against a third party on the belief that since they were merely contracted to do the transportation that they are culpable for the alleged treatment which occurred later.


That's a stretch, isn't it?



I'm not ok with torture. What I'm ok with is dismissing a case against an airline because they were chartered to perform classified legal prisoner transfers. I'm also aware that the reason for said lawsuit isn't because the plaintiffs actually think that the airline is culpable for what they allege happened to them, but because if they are granted the power to gain records of the flights, they can then go on a fishing expedition and make more allegations about other transfers. And along the way, potentially violate national security.


You're going about 3 steps past what I'm arguing. Stop making assumptions here. I'm talking about this case against this airline. If you want to talk about cases directly against the US government, then bring up those cases. But you run into similar problems because those transfers, regardless of what happened at the other end, were "legal". You have to prove that those involved actually knew that the specific prisoners they were transferring were going to be tortured and/or that they did so specifically for that reason. So far, there is only wild speculation on the part of people like you to support that theory.


You can't convict people of a crime on theory and speculation.