CIA using KGB jails?

"The International Committee of the Red Cross expressed strong
interest in the claims, first reported Wednesday in the Washington
Post, that the CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al-Qaeda captives at Soviet-era compounds."

CIA violating international law?

this was quoted on another board, i'm trying to find the link to the full article and i'll post that

[bfp]

I posted about this earlier. The CIA officer that leaked this, and the journalist that first published this info in the Washington Post should be tried for treason.

What we are doing is not wrong, btw. We capture an enemy, and interrogate them.

Big deal.

so it's not a violation of international law?

why would someone say it was if it's not?

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by sgx

so it's not a violation of international law?

why would someone say it was if it's not?

no, it is not a violation of international law. just a bit unseemly.

[bfp]

If we held them there without requesting permission from that nation-state, I could see it being a big deal. But if our allies allow us to do that, then I see no problem.

The CIA agent that released this is no different than Joe Wilson. They are doing it because they disagree with the administrations agenda.

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by sgx

"The International Committee of the Red Cross expressed strong
interest in the claims, first reported Wednesday in the Washington
Post, that the CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al-Qaeda captives at Soviet-era compounds."

CIA violating international law?

this was quoted on another board, i'm trying to find the link to the full article and i'll post that

The holding of prisoners at Soviet Era Compounds is internationally illegal? (just in case.......... dripping with sarcasm)


They're called black sites afaik - we'v used them through out the afganistan and iraqi campaigns

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by sgx

so it's not a violation of international law?

why would someone say it was if it's not?

good lord sgx - are you even remotely surprised that some one would accuse the US of violating "international law" regardless of the veracity of the claim?

what surprises me is how upset you seem to get when i want to talk about something... just calm down

what i'm understanding after speaking to the person that posted the article on the other board was that it's illegal to hold prisoners there without telling anyone that they are there... i guess by anyone they mean the U.S. Government

and i took from what they said that they were drawing a parallel between this and the torture problem in Guatanemo...

but anyway... i don't expect those that frequent this forum to give a shit one way or another

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by sgx

what surprises me is how upset you seem to get when i want to talk about something... just calm down

Which is just one more example of you reading into my posts something that is not there.

Originally Posted by sgx

what i'm understanding after speaking to the person that posted the article on the other board was that it's illegal to hold prisoners there without telling anyone that they are there... i guess by anyone they mean the U.S. Government

Well a lot would depend on who the prisoner is - his status under the Geneva Conventions. If it is a soldier captured on the battle field then different rules apply - however, there is precious little protection for unlawful enemy combatants (that is intentional - because it encourages combatants to play by the rules or pay the price for not). Most (probably all) of the guys held in the camps you refer to are not soldiers or lawful combatants under even the most liberal of readings.

Originally Posted by sgx

and i took from what they said that they were drawing a parallel between this and the torture problem in Guatanemo...

Well, there is and was no torture problem in Guantanamo.

Originally Posted by sgx

but anyway... i don't expect those that frequent this forum to give a shit one way or another

I do give a shit - I hope that the people held are able to give good and actionable intelligence that will help bring an sooner end to this crappy war.

thanks for the reply... i don't have any conflicting information nor am i going to go search for any so i'll take your word that you've done the work and know what you say on the matter is true

maybe the person who i spoke to was against it for philosophical reasons and was overstretching it when they said it was against international law... i dont really know and i'm not going to bring it up again with them

[St. Stalin the Apathetic]

Originally Posted by sgx

thanks for the reply... i don't have any conflicting information nor am i going to go search for any so i'll take your word that you've done the work and know what you say on the matter is true

maybe the person who i spoke to was against it for philosophical reasons and was overstretching it when they said it was against international law... i dont really know and i'm not going to bring it up again with them

Those who oppose the law would read Geneva to extend to unlawful combatants which would include many of the people in Gautanamo... what constitutes a lawful enemy combatant isn't a difficult definition to deciper....

What it really comes down to is a matter of perception - like Edwin said, it is a bit unseemly. And there are of reasonable arguments to be made that such a system doesn't have sufficient safe guards for the prisoners.... but that's why the protections of Geneva are crafted the way they are. Its ugly but its true.