The U.S. has sent people to other countries all along, not just recently, but now we are actually calling them prisoners and technically they are. Are they simply detainees? It is hard these days to know. I guess the fact that we have set up or coordinated the relocation and interrogation of a large number makes all the difference. I wonder how much of the publicity on all of this is strictly motivated by political means though given the fact that it has always ocurred. Hate to say it, but other countries do it as well. I have been to sites where there were relocated detainees from our 'friendly' neighbors. Yes even our friends we love to hate these days. Having said all of that, that does not make it right. In the past it was almost always terrorist suspects, members of cells, or even gun runners. Usually no more than 5 or so at a time depending on who was caught doing what. In many cases the individuals were caught by foreigners (working on our behalf) and turned over to us but not actually released to us and kept overseas and then questioned by the foreigners with us participating. That kept the legal posession of the person with the foreign country and they were never technically held by the U.S. until prosecution (if prosecution was done but typically there were no prosecutions but turning of the persons and future use and investigations). they then became 'sources' not detainees. Who knows whether or not they are still alive today - any of them. This investigation into foreign prisons is really going to 'shake up' the European governments as well. Right or wrong, it will change the amount of information we gather and how we can use it in the future - the U.S. and most European countries. It looks like it will be shutdown universally for sometime. I'm not sure I'm ok with that given the individuals typically detained (in the past). Right or wrong, the practice brought in a lot of information and stopped alot of drug trafficking, gun running, terrorist activities, slave trafficking, etc. The public would be terrified if they knew how many terrorist plots are ungoing in any one day.


>>>On September 22, 2003, an agent of Iran's Intelligence Ministry was charged with the murder of Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi. Commenting on the arrest, a spokesman from the prosecutor's office said "The crime is attributed to one of the [Intelligence Ministry] interrogators," and added that no government body was involved.
>>>
>>>She was tortured and killed, and it was entirely the fault of some interrogator? Certainly not Iranian policy. I suppose you buy this? I have a feeling you don't.
>>>
>>>Why is it the buck always stops at the top everywhere else, but always at the bottom in the U.S.?
>>
>>Comparing us to the Iranians is hardly fair, don't you think?
>
>Can't think why. If the guys at the top in the U.S. don't know what's going on down the line, and the fault is with the underlings, then why can't the same be true of the Iranians? If the guys at the top of the Iranian ladder do know what's going on and are lying, why can't that be true of the U.S.? As far as I can figure it out from your posts here, you take Bush and his cronies at their word simply because you want to, and disbelieve other nations for exactly the same reason.
>
>For me, that defies logic. You may actually be right (I doubt it, but who knows), but there should be a better reason for those beliefs than simply the fact that it's the way you want it to be.
>
>The fact that Chaney and crew are trying very hard to exempt the CIA from the torture ban seems to me to be a good start in applying logic to the situation and concluding that the administration really is aware that it goes on and condones it at least tacitly, if not by edict.
>
>Similarly, why would the U.S. send prisoners to Syria where everybody knows torture is rampant instead of interrogating them at home?