US torturing terror suspects?




 
--
 
December 29th, 2004  
chewie_nz
 

Topic: US torturing terror suspects?


A US jet registered to a ghost company whisks terror suspects to countries that use torture, The Washington Post has reported, based on its own investigation.

The Gulfstream V turbojet has been seen at US military bases around the world, often loading up hooded and shackled suspects and delivering them to countries known to use torture, a process the CIA calls "rendition", the Washington daily said.

The Post investigated the ownership of the jet, which has been spotted in Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan and which carries the tail number N379P, according to the newspaper.

The officers of the plane's corporate owner, Premier Executive Transport Services, are all listed with dates of birth in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, but with social security numbers issued since 1998, found the Post, which was unable to locate any further business or credit information on them or on the company.

The CIA refused comment, but such "proprietary" or front corporations are standard procedure for the agency, former operatives told the Post.

The "rendering" of suspects to countries that employ interrogation techniques banned in the United States is worrisome and could violate the UN Convention on Torture, World Organisation for Human Rights USA executive director Morton Sklar told the daily.

The Post article confirmed much of a November 14 article published in the Sunday Times, of London, which obtained flight plans for the plane, which, the Times said, always departs from Washington, DC and has visited the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where about 550 terror suspects are held.

A Swedish television program, Cold Facts, reported that in December 2001, the jet took hooded terror suspects to Egypt, according to the Post, which confirmed the Swedish report independently.

The Post said the plane, with hooded crew members speaking with US accents, loaded two Egyptian nationals and took off at 4.30am for Cairo.

It said airport officials and amateur plane spotters, some using binoculars, have logged multiple sightings of N379P at several US military airports and fueling station


http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_st...98?format=html
December 29th, 2004  
Charge 7
 
 
And if it is returning individuals to the nation of their origin what then?
December 29th, 2004  
chewie_nz
 
in a case such as this i think the question should be;

what if it isn't?


if it all above board then they should say so.
--
December 29th, 2004  
rocco
 
if it saves the lives of U.S. citizens, then its well worth it.
December 29th, 2004  
Doc.S
 
If it will save other lifes regardless of nationality I say they can send them straight to hell as far as Iam concernd. I would like to help the C.I.A to bring those soulless psychopaths back to the reality if you ask me. You have my IP-adress and I am sure you can find my phone number - just call me up and we can discuss terms and a small fee and I will help you out without a doubt. Maby all my sences could come to some use, instead for rutting away when people die on a daily basis because of incompetent fools with a huge lack of reality understanding. I can smell BS a distance of 10 kilometres - and if you see me running.... You better catch up! 8)

Cheers:
Doc.S
December 29th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
The Washington Post does not have what one could call an unbiased journalistic view. They have made a jump without evidence what this aircraft is being used for. Why yes if its being used for by the CIA. The use must be niefrious.

I agree with DOC S. the people we are fighting do not play fair why should we. IMHO if one good guys life is saved by the death of 20 terrorists it's a fair price.

Besides if they are being transported to their home countries or countries where they are wanted for crimes. Well then thats justice.
December 29th, 2004  
c/Commander
 
 
Who cares? We didn't pick them up for stealing cars and selling drugs...they're terrorists and should be....punished.
December 29th, 2004  
chewie_nz
 
devils advocate time;

these people think that they're fighting against crusaders in their homeland. defending the isalmic faith etc.

in WW2 they would've been called partisans or the risistance. but here they are called insurgents or terrorists. is this right?

i think terrorists are the ones that bomb civilian aircraft, public places etc. when it come to fighting the US occupation forces they seem to be using what little weapons the have and engaging police or military targets (for the most part)
December 29th, 2004  
r031Button
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
I agree with DOC S. the people we are fighting do not play fair why should we.
Because we're not them. We're soldier and warriors; not barbarians, rules apply, and they have to apply, otherwise we're not better then they are.
December 29th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
[quote="r031Button"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 03USMC
I agree with DOC S. the people we are fighting do not play fair why should we.quote]


Thanks for the ethics lesson. They are terrorists they don't rate protection under the geneva convention. Nor do they rate protection under normal rules of criminal justice. If another nation can deal with them more effectively under their laws than the US can. Good I'll pay the frieght.

Because we're not them. We're soldier and warriors; not barbarians, rules apply, and they have to apply, otherwise we're not better then they are.