Bush admits 'black site' secret prisons exist

[shamrock_uk]

Well, this has certainly surprised me, I didn't expect to see a disclosure from the top man.

Looks like (as always these days?) the human rights groups were correct and the official denials were lies.

Mr Bush said the CIA had used an "alternative set of procedures", agreed with the justice department, once suspects had stopped talking. But he said: "The US does not torture. I have not authorised it and I will not."

I'd certainly be interested to know what the 'alternative set of procedures' were...

Lots of good news in Pres. Bush's announcement though (compared to past form at any rate), especially with regards a renewed focus on the Geneva conventions.

Even if they're not followed 100%, having them as the ethical framework for detainee policy should at least help prevent the moral breakdown that occurred at Abu Ghraib and the rest.

I'll give him a rare thumbs up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5321606.stm

and a Q&A:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5321986.stm

[Lavindathar]

Didn't expect him to come out and tell the world, but I think most of the world already knew this!!

[Nightwing]

It makes me wonder what kind of stories are we going to here in the comming weeks.

[Lavindathar]

The thing that gets me, is what did he have to gain by admitting this to the world?

Apart from making the world know for certain there are more Guantanamo's, and lets face it, they get enough criticism for "inhumane treatment" as it is.

I imagine, and note the word imagine, that if the treatment is that bad in the known camp, whats it like in the "secret camps" for terror suspects?

Dont get me wrong, terror suspects need to be interrogated fully, and no-holds barred in my opinion, to make sure that everything they known is made clear to the US Government. It could save lives.

I just dont get what he gained by telling people this.

[shamrock_uk]

Originally posted by Lavindathar: I just dont get what he gained by telling people this.

Link.

Bush meets some criticism but not all Analysis By Paul Reynolds World affairs correspondent, BBC News website President Bush's decisions over detainees in the "war on terror" go some way towards meeting criticism of his policy but not the whole way. The president's moves will probably reduce that criticism but they will not end it. He has acted for four basic reasons. First, the legal imperative The US Supreme Court ruled in June, in a case brought by Osama Bin Laden's driver Salim Ahmed Hamdan against the Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that the US Congress had to authorise military tribunals or commissions at Guantanamo Bay, not the president himself. The court further ruled that the commissions had to offer better legal safeguards. So Mr Bush had to propose the legislation that now goes before Congress. Second, domestic and international pressure There had been calls on him to come clean about the secret prisons run by the CIA and to clean up the scandal over the use of harsh interrogation techniques. European countries in particular were angry about the rendition flights that ferried prisoners to and from the secret camps, reflected in a critical Council of Europe report. The inhumane and degrading treatment of prisoners also attracted huge criticism. Third, the passage of time. This allows the president to say that the al-Qaeda leadership in detention had given all they were going to give, so the secret camps could be safely emptied and the suspects sent to face trial by military commission under the new rules that will be laid out by Congress. However, he has two caveats. The CIA stands ready to reopen the secret camps if more suspects are captured. And he wants legislation to limit lawsuits against interrogators. Fourth, congressional elections in November The moves are part of a big effort by Mr Bush and his administration to switch American public opinion away from the Iraq war onto the "war on terror" and to justify the Iraq war itself as part of that campaign against terrorism. The key concessions he has made are: The acknowledgement of the secret camps and the statement that no prisoners remain in them. He has also acknowledged that a "tough...alternative set of procedures" were used to question them. The improvement of the procedures under which defendants will be tried by the military commissions, which themselves will be under congressional not presidential authorisation. The prohibitions on certain interrogation techniques, including the use of dogs to threaten and so-called "waterboarding", which gives the sensation of drowning. A new army manual issued simultaneously with the president's speech says: "Any inhumane treatment is prohibited" However, he has not moved as far as critics wanted. For example The secret camp programme will remain in being for possible future prisoners. There is no timetable for the closure of Guantanamo Bay. The military commission will be able to exclude a prisoner, under certain conditions, from being present when secret evidence is presented against them. Evidence from torture will not be allowed, but evidence from tough interrogations not amounting to torture can, if the judge thinks it is reliable. Although the prohibition on using inhumane and degrading treatment applies to all US officials wherever they are, it is not entirely certain that in extreme circumstances (for example if an attack was thought to be imminent), they could not apply such treatment. Mr Bush put a reservation down after the passage last year of the Detainee Treatment Act, which outlaws "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment", to potentially allow for this. The president also wants Congress to define in law offences that might fall under Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. This prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment", which he says is too vague. President lays out his reasons Mr Bush justified his approach by listing successes he said had followed from questioning leading al-Qaeda suspects in the secret camps. He also spoke of the need to fight the war on terror by means of intelligence: "Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are under way. This intelligence - this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information." Critic lays out his reservations However, the Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, said: "President Bush's speech was a full-throated defence of the CIA's detention program and of the 'alternative procedures' - read torture - that the CIA has used to extract information from detainees. "Although the president adamantly denied that the US government uses torture, the United States has used practices such as waterboarding that can only be called torture. "The draft military commission legislation he announced today would allow the use of statements obtained under coercion, and would allow the accused to be convicted on the basis of secret evidence." Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...as/5323502.stm Published: 2006/09/07 12:04:10 GMT © BBC MMVI

[johnny]

Most hilarious thing is that every European politician worth his salt is now acting outraged, as if they have just found out something terribly shocking beyond any imagination.

Pathetic Europeans.

[Dreamer128]

Well, except our Harry Potter, Johhny. He's not mad, just dissapointed. LOL!
Oh, and for reasons unknown,
Solana has taken Bush' side.

[ 09-09-2006, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Lavindathar]

Nice link Shamrock, I didn't know that about the US Congress ruling!

[Felix The Assassin]

What really gets me on this issue is the time vs policy issue.

1. For periods that can only be measured in years, and decades at that, have we operated these camps, cells, prisons what have you. Some people seem to think this is soley a President Bush project. That article makes for good light about some European diplomats discussing the flights, "Hmm" Could that mean the camps are in Europe? What about pre-arranged flight plans, if your outraged, you either did not know, or you voted on it, politissuens!

2. Policy, policy, policy. It's all about the policy. President Bush has no "dirt" on his hands from this policy, it's not his! But he is making it very difficult for whomever his successor may be, all the while getting some kudos for his cabinet.

[Thoran]

Politics... GW is trying to smooth the road for the R's trying to hold on to their seats this year.

Personally I think it's risky... it may just have the opposite effect, and we may be looking at a Dem controlled legislative branch soon.