Rendition (kidnapping)

how is this strange? unless you want another terrorist attack, don't you think it would be a good idea for the government to detain and interrogate people whom they believe are connected with terrorists? i don't see why it is messed up, seriously. besides, it is not called kidnapping, it is called arresting.

Quote:

Original post by skyfire how is this strange? unless you want another terrorist attack, don't you think it would be a good idea for the government to detain and interrogate people whom they believe are connected with terrorism? i don't see why it is messed up, seriously.

It's ok until it happens to you. And it is kidnapping -- the U.S. can't "arrest" people in other countries.

It's messed up because:

1. These people have not had any charges brought against them at all
2. This is done in other countries, without the permission of that country. The US is just being an asshole not respecting the sovereignity of other countries.. not like anybody really cares :P
3. They KIDNAP people and smuggle them to secret locations... *cough* Geheime Staatspolizei *cough*
4. How would you like it if some government grunt in the CIA decided YOU were "connected" to terrorists... I bet you wouldn't like being kidnapped and secreted away to be interrogated...

well then how do you think that this problem should be solved? should the government put an end to questioning people? people go to jail for doing "nothing" all of the time but that doesn't mean that we should burn down our court rooms.

No, this isn't "arresting". This isn't anything close to "arresting". The Bush administration has given the CIA free reign to do almost anything it wants. Secret torture prisons, prisons in legal limbo and clandestine human trafficking are definately crossing the line. Since Bush seems to think torture laws don't apply to him (even ones he himself allowed to be passed by congress), it's a safe assumption that torture is an oft-used tool to extract information.

This country doesn't have a good track record when it comes to illegal detention as of late. Remember shortly after 9/11, thousands of immigrants (almost all of whom were middle-eastern and muslims) were arrested, jailed for months (often in solitary confinement), routinely beaten ("this is for 9/11" beatings) and finally deported (even those seeking political asylum, some of whom have disappeared after reaching their home country). So many of these arrests were made, the department of justice even had a tally of them going, proudly declaring the latest numbers. Of course, none of these people were actually charged with crimes, and as soon as the press started asking questions, it was suddenly too inconvenient to give the tally and shortly after, they stopped talking about the arrests altogether.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Quote:

Original post by JohnBolton Quote: Original post by skyfire how is this strange? unless you want another terrorist attack, don't you think it would be a good idea for the government to detain and interrogate people whom they believe are connected with terrorism? i don't see why it is messed up, seriously. It's ok until it happens to you. And it is kidnapping -- the U.S. can't "arrest" people in other countries.

A technicality. The US has a history of "detaining" people in places where they have no jurisdiction and this most of the time has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Case in point...The secret service in Italy last year.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18664

"An Italian court yesterday issued a Europe-wide arrest warrant for 22 CIA agents accused of kidnapping an Egyptian cleric from Milan and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured."

Where is the sense in this kind of action?
You can't just go into another country, do things as you wish and expect to get away with it.

Quote:

Original post by Rain 7 A technicality. The US has a history of "detaining" people in places where they have no jurisdiction and this most of the time has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Case in point...The secret service in Italy last year. http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18664 "An Italian court yesterday issued a Europe-wide arrest warrant for 22 CIA agents accused of kidnapping an Egyptian cleric from Milan and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured." Where is the sense in this kind of action? You can't just go into another country, do things as you wish and expect to get away with it.

ok, so the italian government refuses to arrest terrorists. where's the sense in that?

Quote:

Original post by skyfire Quote: Original post by Rain 7 A technicality. The US has a history of "detaining" people in places where they have no jurisdiction and this most of the time has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Case in point...The secret service in Italy last year. http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18664 "An Italian court yesterday issued a Europe-wide arrest warrant for 22 CIA agents accused of kidnapping an Egyptian cleric from Milan and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured." Where is the sense in this kind of action? You can't just go into another country, do things as you wish and expect to get away with it. ok, so the italian government refuses to arrest terrorists. where's the sense in that?

How is this person a terrorist to the Italian government if the person didn't commit a terrorist act in Italy? Even so, the actions aren't justified. Jurisdiction, is just that. Jurisdiction. Perhaps they could use those resources and intelligence they gather in order to find the location of someone, to possibly collect evidence first, and then come to the Italian government in regards to the issue. If I ran a country, I certainly wouldn't want another country just barging in, calling the shots, and passing judgement on the people that trust me to make those decisions.

Quote:

Original post by skyfire how is this strange? unless you want another terrorist attack, don't you think it would be a good idea for the government to detain and interrogate people whom they believe are connected with terrorists? i don't see why it is messed up, seriously. besides, it is not called kidnapping, it is called arresting.

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=385461

I don't know what music you listen to, but this guy wasn't listening to anything inflammatory, he was listening to music that everyone with an interest in Rock owns. Do you think that you should be shipped off to some undisclosed location in Africa for detention and interrogation just because a taxi driver saw your Public Enemy CD?

13 months... what the hell?

Quote:

Original post by skyfire Quote: Original post by Rain 7 A technicality. The US has a history of "detaining" people in places where they have no jurisdiction and this most of the time has NOTHING to do with terrorism. Case in point...The secret service in Italy last year. http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=18664 "An Italian court yesterday issued a Europe-wide arrest warrant for 22 CIA agents accused of kidnapping an Egyptian cleric from Milan and flying him to Egypt, where he says he was tortured." Where is the sense in this kind of action? You can't just go into another country, do things as you wish and expect to get away with it. ok, so the italian government refuses to arrest terrorists. where's the sense in that?

As opposed to the hard-line US, which pardons terrorists?

Quote:

skyfire: ok, so the italian government refuses to arrest terrorists. where's the sense in that?

how is he automajically a terrorist (in any country) because hes interagated ?

if the US had proof hes a terrorist im sure the italian government would have no problem handing him over, its the fact that they cannot charge him with anything concrete so they have to do something so extreme as this. you can just go into someones country and take people because you "think" they might be terrorist because if it turns out he isnt its a pretty gross violation of the individuals liberty not to mention the countries law.

This isn't just since "9/11". The CIA has been doing this for decades iirc...

EDIT:

Oh, and I find the "zomg if it's a terrist it's okies!" mentality rather retarded. Everybody is using the "Zomg terrist!" excuse to allow the govt. to become much more powerful. Benjamin Franklin put it this way:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Quote:

Original post by dagarach http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=385461 I don't know what music you listen to, but this guy wasn't listening to anything inflammatory, he was listening to music that everyone with an interest in Rock owns. Do you think that you should be shipped off to some undisclosed location in Africa for detention and interrogation just because a taxi driver saw your Public Enemy CD?

this is pretty much completely unrelated to the topic. we're talking about the feds, not local law enforcement.

Nah, they aren't feds there. To the world, and to the europe(and Italy is in europe), your feds is local law enforcement (not even from europe) that has no right whatsoever to just kidnap people. As for terrorists, if there's enough evidence that it is terrorist, it is possible to get him arrested legally. If there is no evidence at all, there is no arrest.

i find it depressing that so much of this country is so brainwashed.

Quote:

... 6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ... 9) Acting to strip United States citizens of their constitutional and human rights, ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to counsel, without charge, and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Executive of a citizen as an "enemy combatant." 10) Ordering indefinite detention of non-citizens in the United States and elsewhere, and without charge, at the discretionary designation of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Defense. ... 12) Authorizing secret military tribunals and summary execution of persons who are not citizens who are designated solely at the discretion of the Executive who acts as indicting official, prosecutor and as the only avenue of appellate relief. 13) Refusing to provide public disclosure of the identities and locations of persons who have been arrested, detained and imprisoned by the U.S. government in the United States, including in response to Congressional inquiry. 14) Use of secret arrests of persons within the United States and elsewhere and denial of the right to public trials. ... Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush (et al.)

"In a world where might did not make right, George W. Bush, Tony Blair and their key enablers would be in shackles before a war crimes tribunal at the Hague, rather than sitting in the White House, 10 Downing Street or some other comfortable environs in Washington and London." Robert Parry, Time to Talk War Crimes

don't forget the illegal propaganda machine.

Nah, only losers(i.e. those who lose war) get tried for war crimes.