Rice defends US treatment of terror suspects

[spindrifter]

snip...
Ms Rice said European countries should trust the US because information gathered by the CIA had "prevented terrorist attacks in Europe ... and other countries".

snip...

Ms Rice neither confirmed nor denied the existence of secret prisons, but she did defend the CIA's use of "rendition": transporting suspects to countries where they can be questioned outside the protection of US law.

snip...

"The US does not use the air space or airport of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee when we believe he or she will be tortured," she said.

"The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture."
snip...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1658214,00.html

Okay, let's put on our thinking caps, boys and girls, does C*ndi have her fingers crossed behind her back whenever she says the word "torture"?

[texpatriot2004]

1. Rice defends TORTURE nm

[malaise]

7. Fugg her n/t

[BobBoudelangFan69]

2. Is This The Same CIA Who Botched All The Pre-War Intell?

[spindrifter]

4. No, this is the All-New Para-CIA.

You know, the ones that star in movies and populate the imaginations of neocons.

[pberq]

3. What more do you need to hear?

This is in direct violation of the UN charter:

"Ms Rice neither confirmed nor denied the existence of secret prisons, but she did defend the CIA's use of "rendition": transporting suspects to countries where they can be questioned outside the protection of US law."

See this thread on an incredible WP story about the CIA picking up an innocent man and holding an torturing him for five months:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5521284&mesg_id=5521284

[0007]

5. This will be just one more issue when these war criminals

are taken to the Hague.

[LittleClarkie]

6. I can't keep up

They won't confirm the existence of these prisons, but it would be okay if they do.

We don't torture, but it would be okay if we did.

We prosecuted the peons of Abu Ghraib, but won't outlaw what they did.

People like Rush say that we want to treat "terrorists" all nicey-nicey and worry about hurting them. Point is, it sounds like sometimes these people we detain, some of them anyway, were just unlucky enough to be in the vicinity. How else do you explain why we would torture, then release someone. If they were indeed a terrorist, wouldn't we have kept them in custody? And why keep them out of the country.

Surely even the Geneva Convention allows for gathering information from prisoners. Oh, that's right. We're not in a war. Except when the president wants to parade around as a "war" president.

My brain hurts.

[spindrifter]

8. Join the crowd! What do

all the military guys who were ill-trained and thought they were pleasing the intelligence guys when they tortured captives thinking about all of this--maybe just thanking their lucky stars (and stripes) that no one rendered them to the back of the darkside of nowhere on a not-flight where information may or may not be "extracted."
C*ndi used the word "extracted" regarding obtaining information from rendered persons. Those of us with dental fear know what "extracting" means.