It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CIA says ACLU-backed plan endangered Gitmo officers

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:34 PM
While I am far from believing everything the CIA says, this isn't the first transgression at Gitmo by members of the aclu.

At what point are these people involved going to be charged with treason or sedition. I know that the aclu is mostly a professional extortionist group, but surely they don't have sway over the CIA of the federal government. Treason and sedition are both punishable offenses as well as serious ones, when will they be reigned in?

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:18 PM
By way of full disclosure, I'm a card carrying, dues paying member of the ACLU. It's best to get that out of the way upfront, so that people who are so inclined can skip the rest of the post and begin to vituperate and imprecate to their heart's content. All in good fun.

That said, I'm kind of impressed with the level of sophistry the Washington Times demonstrated in dragging the ACLU into what is essentially an internecine dispute between the CIA (always a super-reliable source of information), Justice, and the military. The article tries to bury this, but it's there if you read:

Details of the review could not be learned. However, the CIA team came away from the review, conducted the week of March 14, "very concerned" that agency personnel have been put in danger by military rules allowing interaction between the five inmates and defense attorneys, according to an intelligence source close to the review.

Two fun things. First, if you want to smear and can't even get anyone to go on deep background for you, then your option (if you're an unethical journalist working for an unethical news outlet) is to just say "Details could not be learned" and then quote, not an individual, but a general mood of being "very concerned." Slimy.

Second, in the quoted passage, we learn that it was the military's decision to follow their own rules and allow the interaction between the five inmates and their defense attorneys. Yes, the ACLU backed this decision, and used whatever (very limited) influence they have within the military to support it. But it was ultimately a decision made by the military.

Given that it was the decision of military brass to allow for some limited form of due process for the inmates, then the people you would be charging with "treason and sedition" would be bird colonels and higher. Doesn't sound much like "supporting our troops" to me.

Look, one of the things that's a huge mess about Gitmo is that, on top of everything else, it's turned into a territorial pissing match between the military, DOJ, the CIA, private contractors and any other agency who can carve out a little slice of heaven for themselves. None of these (with the exception of DOJ) are circles in which the ACLU has any real juice at all. The only, and I mean only, reason to bring up the "ACLU backing" is to capitalize on that visceral, kneejerk derangement syndrome too many people feel as soon as they see those initials.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:40 PM
While I agree it seems convinent to say it was not discloseable, in another way it's not surprising due to the subject matter As far as the other thread, when attourneys are giving out maps of the compound, copies of id, bages etc, yup, seems treasonous to me.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by adifferentbreed

yup, seems treasonous to me.

Ahh. Thankfully, "seems treasonous to you" is not a legally binding definition of treason.

Could you please enumerate specific actions and provide an explanation for why they are "treason"? It's conducive to a discussion when examples are given, evidence is offered, arguments are developed, etc. Otherwise the discourse descends into a tangle of catch-phrases and slogans.

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by IsThereLifeOnMars

Did you read both articles or just the Time one? Seems they outline it pretty well in the other one. As far as evidence a good portion of it is listed there.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by adifferentbreed]

new topics


log in