• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Real CIA Leak

Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I demand an investigation into the CIA leak about the terrorist prisoners being held overseas and the locations of the these facilities, A) This was top secret information. B) Unlike the Plame outting this has put our people in danger. C) This was actually covert information unlike the identity of Ms. Plame. D) Unlike the Plame outting this was actually illegal. E) This proves that the media has an agenda due to the fact that it's pretty much a none issue.

I demand action be taken on this, I demand indictments, I demand that every reporter, every Senate member, every CIA agent, and every person even remotely involved be brought up on charges by an independent council for this heinous evil act and punished to the fullest extent of the Law, put them in prison, hang them from the raftors, they cannot be allowed to get away with this for as we all know there is no crime worse than leaking top secret information from the CIA! :2wave: Libs I'm watching you. :rofl

Here's the story as it broke at the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html
 
Last edited:

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Isn't it believed that a Republican senator leaked the information....
 

mikeey

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
776
Reaction score
93
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do u guys never go for a pea and leak it all out to your friends.

ha ha thats life.
mikeey
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
So where's the outrage over this CIA link oh ya that's right it's not an attack against the Reps so it doesn't warrant as news right?
Be careful what you wish for, Trajan...it just might come true?

As another poster already stated, it's believed a republican was behind the leak.

Are you aware of the political in-fighting between the CIA and the Bush administration?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hoot said:
Be careful what you wish for, Trajan...it just might come true?

As another poster already stated, it's believed a republican was behind the leak.

Are you aware of the political in-fighting between the CIA and the Bush administration?
Ya a Republican leaked information meant to hurt the Republican parties reelection chances in the 2006 mid-term elections, sure thing. :roll:
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Of course, to admit that there's a leak would mean to admit that these prisons are real and not a figment of the liberal press. And to admit that these are real would mean that we're in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Common Article 3 (CA3) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which has been described as "'a convention within a convention' to provide a general formula covering respect for intrinsic human values that would always be in force, without regard to the characterization the parties to a conflict might give it," protects any detainee under any circumstances. The denial of its protections is therefore a grave breach of Geneva and a war crime under the United States' War Crimes Act of 1996.

CA3 prohibits taking hostages, and it prohibits outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment. It also prohibits the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without a previous judgment by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial guarantees.

Additionally, transfer of any person who is not a prisoner of war out of occupied territory is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as a war crime. Deportation is also a crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter.
So, tip of the iceburg. Of course, since the democrats have their hands full with investigating all of the ethical problems already, this will just have to wait. Sorry if government isn't as fast as McDonald's drive thru.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya a Republican leaked information meant to hurt the Republican parties reelection chances in the 2006 mid-term elections, sure thing. :roll:
I don't believe any Democrats were at the meeting. Possibly a Republican felt the prisons are immoral, unethical or illegal?
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
Of course, to admit that there's a leak would mean to admit that these prisons are real and not a figment of the liberal press. And to admit that these are real would mean that we're in violation of the Geneva Convention.


So, tip of the iceburg. Of course, since the democrats have their hands full with investigating all of the ethical problems already, this will just have to wait. Sorry if government isn't as fast as McDonald's drive thru.
They're not uniformed soldiers and therfor they are not entitled to the rights under the Geneva convention.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
They're not uniformed soldiers and therfor they are not entitled to the rights under the Geneva convention.
Great, so you have the list of the prisoners and can prove that. Awesome, please show us your link.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
shuamort said:
Of course, to admit that there's a leak would mean to admit that these prisons are real and not a figment of the liberal press. And to admit that these are real would mean that we're in violation of the Geneva Convention.


So, tip of the iceburg. Of course, since the democrats have their hands full with investigating all of the ethical problems already, this will just have to wait. Sorry if government isn't as fast as McDonald's drive thru.
You'd also have to include the international ramifications...

If is is true that we have prisons in other countries...

a) Those countries would have to agree upon this
b) Terrorist organizations will now claim these countries as targets, due to their collaborative efforts with "The American Devil".
c) They were kept secret to their own populations...They put up a front to their own people saying "Don't involve us in this war", but secretly involve themselves.
d) They would also be part of Geneva Convention violations, if any.

The world craps on America every chance they get...Now the countries that have collaborated with the US in this will have to answer...This leak has probably done a crapload more to them than us...
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
Great, so you have the list of the prisoners and can prove that. Awesome, please show us your link.
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now do you think that targeting innocent civilians on purpose is in accordance to the laws of war?

Are you saying that the Iraqi insurgents are wearing uniforms? Come on man the reason why the uniform code is in the Geneva convention is so that we can distinguish b/w civilian and military targets so as to avoid collateral damage. And is in the Geneva convention to deter enemy combatants from hiding amongst the civilian population which the insurgency is obviously doing.

What's up now big dog you're not the only one who can quote the Geneva convention.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now do you think that targeting innocent civilians on purpose is in accordance to the laws of war?

Are you saying that the Iraqi insurgents are wearing uniforms? Come on man the reason why the uniform code is in the Geneva convention is so that we can distinguish b/w civilian and military targets so as to avoid collateral damage. And is in the Geneva convention to deter enemy combatants from hiding amongst the civilian population which the insurgency is obviously doing.

What's up now big dog you're not the only one who can quote the Geneva convention.
Umm, thanks for NOT answering my question. Since you don't have the prisoner list, you don't have any proof as to who is there, right? Right.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
Umm, thanks for NOT answering my question. Since you don't have the prisoner list, you don't have any proof as to who is there, right? Right.
What are you talking about what uniformed soldiers? There are none and there never was they all took off their uniforms and melted back into the population, have you even been following the war? And besides that it doesn't even matter anyways due to article 4 section 2D in which it states that prisoners of war must meet the following criteria including:

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The insurgency is not and never has followed the laws of war or abided by the Geneva convention and are therfor not entitled to its protection.
 
Last edited:

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What are you talking about what uniformed soldiers? There are none and there never was they all took off their uniforms and melted back into the population, have you even been following the war? And besides that doesn't matter due to article 4 section 2D in which it states that prisoners of war must meet the following criteria:

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The insurgency is not and never has followed the laws of war or abided by the Geneva convention.
You mean the uniformed Republican Guard who are protected under the Geneva Convention.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
22,807
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Fayettenam
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
shuamort said:
Of course, to admit that there's a leak would mean to admit that these prisons are real and not a figment of the liberal press. And to admit that these are real would mean that we're in violation of the Geneva Convention.

Common Article 3 (CA3) of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which has been described as "'a convention within a convention' to provide a general formula covering respect for intrinsic human values that would always be in force, without regard to the characterization the parties to a conflict might give it," protects any detainee under any circumstances. The denial of its protections is therefore a grave breach of Geneva and a war crime under the United States' War Crimes Act of 1996.

CA3 prohibits taking hostages, and it prohibits outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment. It also prohibits the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without a previous judgment by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial guarantees.

Additionally, transfer of any person who is not a prisoner of war out of occupied territory is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as a war crime. Deportation is also a crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Charter.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
What was quoted above referes to the treatment of folks who are not prisoners of war. To offer up evidence that someone is not a prisoner of war merely reinforces shua's case. I just thought I'd let you know.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
What was quoted above referes to the treatment of folks who are not prisoners of war. To offer up evidence that someone is not a prisoner of war merely reinforces shua's case. I just thought I'd let you know.
This was written to protect against the forced deportation of non-combatants and innocent civilians; such as jews during WW2, this does not have to do with unlawful combatants; furthermore,


An unlawful combatant is a spy, saboteur or (sometimes) a terrorist who pursues a military objective outside the commonly accepted laws of war. Not wearing the uniform of a sovereign nation (as in spying) or not being under the command authority of a recognizable entity are the chief reasons for a combatant to be classified as "unlawful". By contrast, uniformed soldiers who commit atrocities are tried for war crimes.

There are many special cases, as well, including those in recent years of armed militants who are deemed not to enjoy protection of the Geneva Convention (GC) on the grounds that they are not part of any country which is a treaty signator. These people need not be accorded lawful combatant status according to the laws of war.

Many Western advocates who oppose America's conduct in its "War on Terrorism" (after 9/11) advocate extension of combatant status to unlawful combatants, on various humanitarian, legal and political grounds. There is the humanitarian idea that everyone should get a fair trial. There is the legal theory that the Geneva Convention automatically applies to all enemies of treaty signatories. There is the political idea that requiring America to extend GC protection to its detainees is good, because it will otherwise undermine its military strategy.

The "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". (Other terms occasionally used include illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant.)

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in GCIII; nor does the word "combatant." However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." If there is doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a competent tribunal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_combatant

The Geneva Convention Doesn't apply to terrorists!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
shuamort said:
You mean the uniformed Republican Guard who are protected under the Geneva Convention.
Ya you mean the Republican Guard that took off their uniforms and melted into the population and are now the bulk of the insurgency or the ones that didn't, surrendered or were captured, and are now in custody at Abu Graihb prison and not in the secret prison camps overseas?
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Ya you mean the Republican Guard that took off their uniforms and melted into the population and are now the bulk of the insurgency or the ones that didn't, surrendered or were captured, and are now in custody at Abu Graihb prison and not in the secret prison camps overseas?
You still haven't been able to prove your claim as to the fact that there are no Geneva Convention violations being perpetrated. Since you don't know who the prisoners were and most likely they haven't been given a (fair) trial, we may never know either.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Second, the United States government announced with respect to Iraq that the Geneva Conventions apply. Articles III and IV apply for the Iraqi prisoners of war and apply to the civilian non-military detainees. That has been the case from the beginning.
--SECDEF Rumsfeld
Rumsfeld from your own post:

They then concluded that the Taliban did not qualify because under Geneva there are certain things that one looks for to determine whether or not they are lawful or unlawful combatants. Had the Taliban worn uniforms, had the Taliban used weapons that were visible, had the Taliban functioned in a chain of command, had the Taliban done three or four other things that are the indicators or the criteria by which Geneva suggests it be judged as to whether someone is or is not a lawful or unlawful combatant. Had they had those characteristics and met those criteria, the President would have announced that the Geneva Convention applied specifically to Taliban. The judgment was that they did not meet those. They were not running around in uniforms. They were not doing those things that lawful combatants do. So the President made a decision that not only Al-Qaeda did not merit under the criteria of Geneva, the specific provisions as lawful combatants, but so too Taliban did not even though Afghanistan did as a country. Now, he then went on to say, however, the United States government intends to -


Rumsfeld again: Now, that’s the circumstance. The - the implication that that created some sort of an impression of distain for Geneva is exactly opposite. And the reason that the decision was made was because of respect for Geneva because Geneva is designed to distinguish between lawful combatants like our men and women in uniform who we want protected under Geneva, because they wear uniforms, they wear - carry weapons that are exposed, they do function in a chain of command, they meet the criteria. And the Geneva Conventions were designed to protect people like that and not to protect people not like that.

Rumsfeld: So to the extent that unlawful combatants do what they do, that is to say blend into civilian, women and children, put them at risk, put them in danger, attack men and women and children who are civilians and innocents, to the extent they do that they are deemed by Geneva Convention to not be appropriate to fall under the provisions of Geneva

Notice that in your statement that Rumsfeld does not say: "and unlawful combatants," he says: "and non-military detainees." But then go's on to clarify that Unlawful Combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

The policy has always been that unlawful combatants are infact not entitled to rights under the Geneva Convention, as well they shouldn't be, do you honestly propose that people plotting to blow up women and children at wedding parties be afforded the same rights as regular soldiers?
 
Last edited:

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
What type of neanderthal could compare the actions of the CIA (a covert agency) to the actions of an executive administration of the United States (a public power).

This whole thread has fallacy written all over it. The CIA is a covert agency which operates under the spectrum of public perception. The CIA only answers to the senate. THey do not ever answer directly... nor should they have to. Nothing the CIA does should ever be of public domain. That is exactly why your hero Bush and his cohorts are facing such scrutiny. THey know the rules. You don't. Stop trying to be a hero. You are only making a complete fool of yourself, Mr. Tribulus lactification stellis terrestris.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Archon said:
What type of neanderthal could compare the actions of the CIA (a covert agency) to the actions of an executive administration of the United States (a public power).

This whole thread has fallacy written all over it. The CIA is a covert agency which operates under the spectrum of public perception. The CIA only answers to the senate. THey do not ever answer directly... nor should they have to. Nothing the CIA does should ever be of public domain. That is exactly why your hero Bush and his cohorts are facing such scrutiny. THey know the rules. You don't. Stop trying to be a hero. You are only making a complete fool of yourself, Mr. Tribulus lactification stellis terrestris.

First off I was pointing out the hypocricy of the Democrats.

Secondly are you saying that the Senator or Senators who leaked this info should not be held accountable and if so why? Oh ya because they're most likely Dems right?
 

Archon

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
184
Reaction score
0
Location
Indiana/Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
First off I was pointing out the hypocricy of the Democrats.

Secondly are you saying that the Senator or Senators who leaked this info should not be held accountable and if so why? Oh ya because they're most likely Dems right?
I cannot say where the leak originated because I don't actually know... neither do any of us. If we want to wage war on our assumptions then we will only be debating hypothesis. Don't make it such a partisan issue. This is an issue of national security and exposure of classified information. To attempt to attack the CIA, yet again, is completely ridiculous. They cannot do thier job if they are subjected to people who are willing to disclose pertinent information about their operations for some type of political gain. We tend to call that treason.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Archon said:
I cannot say where the leak originated because I don't actually know... neither do any of us. If we want to wage war on our assumptions then we will only be debating hypothesis. Don't make it such a partisan issue. This is an issue of national security and exposure of classified information. To attempt to attack the CIA, yet again, is completely ridiculous. They cannot do thier job if they are subjected to people who are willing to disclose pertinent information about their operations for some type of political gain. We tend to call that treason.
I'm not attacking the CIA I'm attacking who ever leaked the Info that put our people overseas in danger.
 
Top Bottom