# CIA leak



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192640,00.html

Was this CIA agent wrong in leaking information? It seems to me that if such torture camps do exist (there is overwhelming evidence that they do) that they should be exposed. Sending prisoners to be tortured using inhumane methods is nothing more than outsourcing torture. Simply because the person resides in a different area during the procedure doesn't change the fact that it was done to gain intelligence for a country (the US) that has signed treaties claiming that it will not use such violent methods. It is just as illegal to send someone out to be tortured as it is to torture them on American soil. I believe that it is the duty of every American to expose such illegal actions.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, I get a lot of mixed signals from this story. First of all I believe it is against the Geneva convention for any nation to torture anyone. I am also skeptical about stories that demonize the United States. This is where the emotional thing comes into play and gets us into arguments instead of debate. 
Many in the United States are overly willing to believe these stories. Then there are those of us who believe that liberals will manufacture these stories to damage the president, not caring if it damages the United States. Both of these scenarios cast aspersions on one party or the other. It is no more radical to believe that liberals want their power back so bad they would demonize us before the world than it is to believe that our nations is torturing people in other countries. 
This discussion could be ok, but I don't think anyone knows what is going on yet. If the FBI, CIA and others don't know the truth yet surely none of us do. If we are to continue talking about this we will be safe as long as we don't jump to conclusions. Personally I think any accusation either way yet is unfounded.
I believe America is the most humane nation on the face of this earth. That said I can't speak for anyone else, but if I captured a known terrorist, or someone who had just killed a good friend I can't say what I would do. It's easy sitting here at our keyboard, but do you really know?

The leak was wrong, it could have been handled other ways.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Thus far I have heard that these torture areas were in Poland and Romania among six others.



> If the FBI, CIA and others don't know the truth yet surely none of us do.


I believe they already know.



> That said I can't speak for anyone else, but if I captured a known terrorist, or someone who had just killed a good friend I can't say what I would do.


Ah thus the problem. So many people that are picked up as possible terrorists are simply picked up in raids to be safe. I believe I heard that 98% of those captured are released.

Even if the person was a known terrorist, they are no less human. They deserve a fair trial and the same punishment as anyone else.

I watched a show on CSPAN recently which was an interview with two Muslim fellows from England. They were picked up as possible terror suspects and flown to Gitmo. They were treated poorly. One recalled how a man who had problems with his stomach was repetedly kicked in the stomach such that his clothes were stained in blood. He wore these clothes for over a week. They were flown to another prison, the name of which escapes me. They stated that they were flown in the cargo hold of a plane, and were strapped to the floor laying down. There were not allowed to move or speak else they would be beaten. The men turned out to be innocent, though the British government did nothing to help them.

At the bare minimum, we need to have a fair trial before we persecute these people. It is unfair and downright unAmerican to beat and nearly drown people without convicting them, much less to torture and beat them at all.



> The leak was wrong, it could have been handled other ways.


It seems to me that if you see something illegal going on that it is your duty to inform the media and get the issue resolved.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Plainsman, this is old news. The leak occurred last year and was never proven or disapproved. The link itself is about the firing of the CIA agent that was caught leaking the information. Should he have been fired? Absolutely and maybe even criminal charges should brought against him. Now I'm sure there will be the usual suspects that try to argue that the President did the same thing but we both know or expect the spin to be forth coming and who will spin it.

The Geneva Convention deals with combatants captured on the battle field. These are terrorists and I'm with the President when he claims the Geneva Convention does not apply to them. They are not fighting soldiers on the battle field as in normal warfare, but trying to murder American civilians in their sleep or work place. I have no qualms about using any method possible to stop them before they can commit another heinous act such as 9/11.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Quote:
That said I can't speak for anyone else, but if I captured a known terrorist, or someone who had just killed a good friend I can't say what I would do.



> Ah thus the problem. So many people that are picked up as possible terrorists are simply picked up in raids to be safe. I believe I heard that 98% of those captured are released.


Again, I said known terrorist. The other part I say "just killed" a good friend. I mean boom your friends brains are splattered on your face and the guy runs out of ammo. He can't shoot but you still can. Are you going to take him prisoner or just shoot him. Personally I'm going to dump his behind right on the spot. Once he is in prison by all means he must then have a trial. But if his rifle is gong click, click and my crosshairs are on his face he is going to wake up sitting ----well, where it is very warm, and not a virgin in sight.

As far as the story these guys told it is questionable. If they were not terrorists, but simply terrorist sympathizers they are going to tell stories that will make the United States look bad to the rest of the world. They also want some of us here in the United States to believe it so they can create people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda. Wars are not always won with the best weapons or the truth.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon soldiers have tried to murder each other where they sleep as quickly as where they stand since the beginning of time. If indeed these folks are not considered enemy combatants ((I don't see how, considering most of them are insurgents (a separation that the president has not made, but must make) and are fought in... combat)) then why doesn't the president simply have them tortured in American prisons on American soil? These actions should not have to be hidden and done in seclusion if they are indeed legal.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon

Oh, that old junk again. Yes, I remember that. That's also right about the Geneva convention. Soldiers in uniform, and I think even spies in an organized military are protected by the Geneva convention, but terrorists are exempt. I guess if these people want to be terrorists they are accepting the risk. 
I wouldn't be for torturing anyone, but I would execute the suckers. Perhaps by the time I got to the third or fourth one they would grow tired of watching daylight appear through their fellow terrorists heads. They would be free to talk and save their miserable hides at any time. 
Known guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt that is. Like just personally witnessed.

To late, good night.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman I would agree with you but I just don't think that it is a very commonplace scenario. Like I said most of these people are being picked up in raids on homes, not run down after shooting a Marine in the head. When we beat people or execute them before giving them a fair trial we may be no better than they are for hurting the innocent. Give them a fair and speedy trial, and if they are indeed terrorists, shoot them like the dogs they are.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> shoot them like the dogs they are.


So now you're for the death penalty? Cool!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> soldiers have tried to murder each other where they sleep as quickly as where they stand since the beginning of time


As usual, in one ear and out the other. What is it about "trying to murder American *civilians* in their sleep" went over your head this time. These are terrorist, not soldiers, not insurgents. Insurgents fight a existing government or occupying force. They don't blow up their own people. If you don't understand that then you understand nothing.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So now you're for the death penalty? Cool!


It is an extenuating circumstance involving a non-American who is supposedly not protected under the Geneva Convention. I can understand the want to see them fry, and I have a hard time disagreeing. I am caught between the two however, because Lord knows America wants to see someone fry for 9/11 ( par instance Moussaoui), but at the same time in killing them you turn them into martyrs. They could also be dangerous inside of prison spreading their ideas to people who would be released from prison. It is either solitary confinement for life or death for them.



> As usual, in one ear and out the other. What is it about "trying to murder American civilians in their sleep" went over your head this time.


I misread that, I thought it said trying to kill soldiers in their sleep. As to killing civilians where they sleep, ever heard of Dresden? No? How about Hiroshima?



> These are terrorist, not soldiers, not insurgents. Insurgents fight a existing government or occupying force. They don't blow up their own people. If you don't understand that then you understand nothing.


And I'm glad that you make the separation. The vast majority of those who are being fought in Iraq are insurgents, not terrorists. Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology. The foreign Jihadists (who number aproximately 1000 in Iraq, compared to the 6000 or 7000 insurgents. This is working from memory of Meet the Press, if anyone has more exacting numbers feel free to post them) are the ones we have to worry about at home.

Here is some evidence of that http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... usat_x.htm


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

If you care to learn more about this CIA agent and her situation, consider reading this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/washi ... yt&emc=rss


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> who made a contribution to Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004
> 
> Some former intelligence officials who worked with Ms. McCarthy saw her as a persistent obstacle to aggressive antiterrorism efforts.
> 
> ...


So she liked Kerry, isn't aggressive against terrorists, Clintons intelligence reports were spilled to the press (by someone) and she didn't like Conton's actions against terrorists, or now Bush's. 
It looks like she is political, has a soft spot for terrorists, and didn't take her oath of office, about not leaking sensitive information, very serious. I think she was in the wrong business. She made the decision to violate that oath, now live with it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The accused, Mary McCarthy, denies that she leaked any information. She claims that she did not know about the prisons at all and as such could not leak the information.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12479685/


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The accused, Mary McCarthy, denies that she leaked any information


Gee Golly ................. you think the possibility of felony charges looking her in the face might have something to do with the denial..... :lol:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Gohon said:


> > The accused, Mary McCarthy, denies that she leaked any information
> 
> 
> Gee Golly ................. you think the possibility of felony charges looking her in the face might have something to do with the denial..... :lol:


Hey it worked for slick Willy....Deny deny deny and bam your off the hook.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Gee Golly ................. you think the possibility of felony charges looking her in the face might have something to do with the denial.....


Or she might be innocent.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

A defense source says she did not specifically flunk the part of her polygraph test that asked whether she was the one who leaked information on secret prisons to Dana Priest of The Washington Post. :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> did not specifically flunk the part of her polygraph test


Is that sort of like someone not being specifically pregnant??????


----------

