Yes you would feel like a victim of terrorism and you would be correct, you would then be a victim of terrorism. Dress it up and call it what you like, it won't change the fact that it's terrorism. It doesn't make it okay if other people are committing terrorist acts elsewhere. And if someday the U.S. and the Bush Administration face international charges for this, our sailors could face charges as well.

Scary!

Yeah. I agree. If you torture people you should sort of be imprisoned or hanged. Whether you're in the CIA, the Navy or Al Qaeda. We have to start drawing some lines here.

I agree, Liberty!! But we're right and they're wrong and anyone who disagrees with us is with them. Blah, is anyone else getting really tired of all this?

this is horrible. how can we hold people for 6 years without a hearing??

The US government and all other governments are able to do this because they have successfully connected these practices with keeping the public safe. My question is then: shouldn't the public be blamed for believing that artificial connection? After all, you get what you deserve.

I don't think there's a tacit acceptance between the American people and their government over torture. However, it's not like we can go to Guantanamo and tear down the prison walls. The fact that people are disgusted and talking about this openly to me is a clear sign that the public shouldn't be blamed in my opinion.

Is that what you meant or did I miss your point entirely?

Great, they'll be loading us all on to ships if anyone listens to Harry!

wow. the world is becoming more and more like the last season of LOST.

So what are we going to do? Whenever Congress tries to subpoena a Bush Administration official, they claim executive privilege... and I'm not sure Congressional Democrats will get the Supreme Court to back them up.

I'm not suggesting anything radical at all. Just an awareness that this is a false connection. I'm saying that if we had had that after 9/11, our representatives in congress (including Mrs. Clinton I might add) may not have permitted the use of force in Iraq. After all, everyone (75% of the public) thought Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were allies. Then we went ahead and re-elected this administration in 2004. What does that say about the American Public? Maybe now we're aware but that doesn't excuse the public from being gullible then.

Oooh, can we put everyone who voted for Bush the second time on a ship!?!
Isn't Congress threatening to order Rove's arrest if he won't testify? If the Court doesn't back them up, then it's time to tell John Conyers to present the articles of impeachment that he's been sitting on. We're in a real ugly mess - and I'm perfectly willing to hold members of Congress accountable as well as the Bush Administration.

I agree with harry to an extent. The Bush administration has done a fabulous job at lying to the public. There are some people who believe whatever the administration tells them. So yes they are at fault for not questioning their leaders. Awareness is the key to being an informed citizen in this country. The people who believe everything that the Bush Admin. says are the ones that believe Barack Obama is a Muslim! It seems that whenever anyone in the admin is questioned they just say go F**ck yourself or that it is not true. I am truly frightened with all the crap this admin. has gotten away with.

I hear what you're saying, Harry, but that's sophistry. You can extend blame to everyone. The rest of the world sat by and did nothing while we invaded Iraq, which was an illegal action by most accounts. The people who are to blame are the ones who commanded these decisions and the ones who followed them through. Bush did not run on a platform of "I will lie to you and I will torture people." True, anyone with half a brain could have figure out he was lying to the American people about 9/11 and Iraq, but in 2003, we had already invaded.

I wonder though if it truly is an issue of gullibility, purely. So much has been obscured, distorted in terms of information trickling down to the public - I imagine that much is still being kept from us by the current administration as we speak. I felt such frustration in 2004; I think it is far more complex than mere (willful) naïveté .

Stephley - I entirely agree, although I feel somewhat hopeless in terms of impeachment. And history is so revisionistic, who knows how Bush will be portrayed in posterity...

Carriefrances - I definitely agree with what you write, and Obama has asserted that he is Christian - but, what would be so wrong were he to be a Muslim? I'm asking in earnest. I mean, some people say that as if it were the ultimate failing. I am not a Muslim, yet I would embrace a leader based on his merits, positions and so forth rather than his personal religious beliefs.

Eilonwy- I agree totally. We should vote for our candidates based on their policies not their religious beliefs. Again the GOP has convinced some of the American public that if you are not a religious zealot then you are anti patriotic. It is just absurd some of the things people believe today!

Okay I just read the full article. It doesn't sound like they have any solid facts to support the prison ship theory. I was stationed on Diego Garcia (the supposed place for the prison ships) for a year and a half and I was in Navy intelligence. You can't even get on that island without a security clearance. There is no media coverage there. Even if there were ships there, there is no way anyone could prove it. But that's a BIG IF. There were no prison ships there. The island is only 10.5 square miles. There is no secret holding area.

I agree with you too, carriefrances and Eilonwy. We had a discussion on this issue a while back. Check out the post: Being a Muslim Should Not be Political Kryptonite, if you're interested.

WOW!!!! I just read some more articles on it. This is like a conspiracy theory. One of them said that there is a torture chamber hidden in the air strip. That is an out and out lie. I was stationed there in 2002 and 2003.

Here's Diego Garcia's website.

http://www.dg.navy.mil/web/

Carriefrances, I know! And what a double standard. One must adhere to blind dogmatism but *only* if it corresponds to the correct religious orientation. I have family members who are extremely devout, and yet they dismiss Obama based on the hearsay that he is Muslim. I would have assumed that my family members' religious faith would have recognized first and foremost tolerance of belief. And their political beliefs (spurred by their religious conversions) are so emotionally-based that I cannot even discuss anything with them, ...*sigh*

Thank you LibertySugar. This is my first time posting in the sugar community

I'm sure there will be all sorts of sources (you can find them credible or not) when the full report comes out. This article was reporting on the report itself, which has not be published yet.

Back in February, the UK's Foreign Secretary apologized to parliament after records revealed that US planes, carrying terror suspects, twice landed in the UK dependent territory of Diego Garcia to refuel, apparently without UK permission.

Thank you for sharing your experience, harmonyfrance. Let's all stay tuned for the report, so we can assess it then, too.

Glad you're here Eilonwy!

harmony you kind of confirmed my thoughts. Why exactly are we taking the word of prisoners on this?

I don't mean to stir up anything but anyone who rejects other religions or spiritual practices out-of-hand isn't really faithful themselves. In effect it proves their lack of faith because intolerance is not something espoused by any religion.

WOW! That's huge Liberty! The planes landing without permission I mean. Nobody can set foot on that island without the UK's permission. We never got any USO performers because of the hoops they had to go through. Also like I said there is a media ban...or there was a couple of years ago. Clearly things could've changed since I left.

HF, this story and reports of secret prisons scattered throughout the world aren't new. And I never would have believed we'd run a place like Guantanamo.

Thanks for your insights HF! Its always nice to hear from someone who was ACTUALLY THERE.

Here's from the article Liberty linked - the one about apologizing to Parliament cuz oops, yes it happened:

David Miliband has admitted two US "extraordinary rendition" flights landed on UK territory in 2002.
The foreign secretary said in both cases US planes refuelled on the UK dependent territory of Diego Garcia.
He said he was "very sorry" to have to say that previous denials made in "good faith" were now having to be corrected.
The renditions - the transport of terror suspects around the world for interrogation - only came to light after a US records search, he said.
BBC world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said the revelations were "a serious embarrassment for the British government".

Oh I'm not necessarily saying that I don't believe in the scattered prisons. I'm saying that I don't believe they were at Diego Garcia. I mean I don't think I can explain how tiny this island is. You can walk it in 3 hours. The gossip on the island was insane...security clearances or not...there is no way they could have held that kind of secret from everyone on the island. AND I was stationed at the communication center where all (top secret) information went to and from the island. I never heard a peep about that. I heard plenty of other crazy stuff but NOTHING about prison ships. I think it's really crazy that it's my little island that's being accused of this. I'm kind of in shock.

Ok I'm a lil annoyed that everyone is blowing off what HF said... she was in intelligence, she was there for over a year. Can we please take her comments a little more seriously?

Are we really so committed to believing this, whether it pans out to be factual or not (and that is STILL not determined) that we'd reject personal testimony from someone in intelligence who was actually there?!?

OK, secret floating prisons aside — the US government admits to holding enemy combatants without charge. Confirmed practices still give us a lot to discuss.

I completely agree that a confirmed practice of holding enemies without charge warrants discussion... I would just prefer to keep the conspiracy theories at bay (no pun intended ) until we have some evidence, or at least until we don't have someone who was there saying that it doesn't exist.

cabaker27, I definitely took was HF said seriously. I did not receive the impression that anyone was blowing her off. I find it so refreshing when someone with real-life connection to the topic at hand shares their story.

I do think it's horrible that we are holding enemy combatants without charge. At the same time there might be lives being saved by doing it. This is one of those topics that I go back and forth on what I think is the lesser evil. War is just horrible.

To me, it's sort of annoying when someone with real life experience offers their opinion when they differ with my world view.

WHY A FREAKING CAKE???? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???

I'm not rejecting her personal testimony, but this isn't a brand new story and it has been an issue with the Brits. We have five years of confirmed practices that could cause a great deal of trouble for individual members of the military - how long should people/voters wait until we're absolutely, positively, no kidding certain about absolutely everything that may be going on before we press Congress and anyone else we can to stop it?

Lives MIGHT be saved if police could pick up every nasty looking character on the street.

HarmonyFrance, I understand your feeling conflicted; however, pre-emptive captivity (and torture no less!) sets dangerous precedent, one based on a premise to which I reject wholly: based on that practice, one could imprison all citizens who fit certain demographics...this is entirely counter to the tenets and practices which a free nation should uphold...

Oh absolutely eilonwy....I agree that it's a dangerous thing to start...or rather continue. Where do we draw the line? I'm just saying that no one knows what kind of intelligence has been gleaned from this sort of thing. I'm also curious as to what the torture consists of.

I think we draw the line by charging them, and having a trial. If they did something wrong, let's lock them up. If they didn't then why are we holding them without a charge? An innocent man just was released after 6 years at Gitmo. He had to go home and see his 7 year old son, he left when he was 1. We might be saving lives, but we're definitely ruining others.

I think we're on the same page harmonyfrance What upsets me, however, is that it has been documented again and again by psychologists, psychiatrists and so forth, that under pressured circumstances (even without torture) false information and confessions run rampant among captives.

I would never endorse or condone *any* form of torture. Period.

That the ends to this horrific means is most likely fallacious is just so disheartening.

Libertysugar, that is beyond sad and to think there are unnumbered captives who may never even see their friends or experience their former life again, let alone their family...what a bittersweet reunion.

I guess the problem I see is what's to keep them from lying on the stand? I understand that false info and confessions can result from torture. So how do we get the truth out of these people? I wish there was a full-proof truth serum like in the movies.

"none of your friends or family knew where your were" -- should be "where you were"

Anyway, Harmony I loved reading your perspective on this. All most of us can rely on is what we hear and read and most often the sources we get that information from are sources that we generally agree with what they write/say anyway. We all know that it's often not accurate.

"I do think it's horrible that we are holding enemy combatants without charge. At the same time there might be lives being saved by doing it."-HF

This is the blurring of the line or the false connection that I was talking about. People should not be held without trial no matter whether they can hurt us or not. It becomes a very slippery slope to justify this.

I have to disagree Harry. Enemy combatants are like POWs. You don't release POWs until the end of hostilities, because the only thing those released POWs will do is grab a gun and fight again.

As far as floating prisons, let's make sure there's an ounce of truth to the story before we vote to burn the administration at the stake.

Dave, We don't know that these people are enemy combatants - THEY HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED IN YEARS! And with this administration, where there's a whiff of smoke, they've more than proved, there's a damned inferno. These people aren't POWs, because POWs have rights protected by international law. And if the one's who are released pick up guns and come after us, who in good conscience can blame them?