**Breaking: B*sh Announcement, re: Prisoners in Secret CIA Prisons

[npincus]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2400470

(on edit: update with article )

B*sh's knuckle-dragging, war-on-terra-prosecutin' base is going to LOVE this!


President Bush Expected to Announce Major Reversal in Handling of Terror Suspects


Sept. 6, 2006 — ABC News has learned that President Bush will announce that high-value detainees now being held at secret CIA prisons will be transferred to the Department of Defense and granted protections under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

A source familiar with the president's announcement says it will apply to all prisoners now being held by the CIA, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks, and senior al Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh.

The source says there are "about a dozen" prisoners now being held by the CIA.

Until now, the U.S. government has not officially acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons.

[havocmom]

1. the other prisoners have protections?

They can't even phone home. They have been 'disappeared' for all intents and purposes.

:wtf:

[KyndCulture]

2. Jeez

WILL BE GRANTED SAME PROTECTIONS AS OTHER PRISONERS


which means NONE.

[WilliamPitt]

3. He's backing down

Warner was leading a Senate GOP revolt on this, and Bush just folded his cards.

[KyndCulture]

4. Not nearly a large enough plate of crow

for him to eat today....

in fact that plate he NEEDS to eat is about as big as texas.

[Vincardog]

5. Does that mean that there is something standing in the way of total

control and unchecked DICTATORSHIP?

[cc488is]

7. These guys were not even known to be

in US custody.

[underpants]

8. Will Will Will Bush doesn't back down

this is a full fledged flip flop

[npincus]

6. Alternate headline: "Gov't acknowledges existience of secret CIA prisons"

[peekaloo]

9. no kidding.

*head explodes*

[global1]

10. *Co Is Getting Ready For A Loss Of The House/Senate Or Both.....

they ain't takin no chances. When the Dems get back into control and start probing they want to make sure that they can say they reconsidered and changed. They don't want to be no war criminals.

I wonder if they still can be prosecuted under the grounds that they did it anyway even if they back down now and reverse their policies?

I really think they know they are in trouble and they will do anything to prevent them from the investigations that will begin after Nov. '06. They're running scared and that's a good omen.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zodiak]

12. Oversight

Without oversight, this is just an assurance, much like "we don't torture prisoners".

I want to be SURE we honor the Geneva Conventions at Guantanamo, and be sure that there are only 12 of these prisoners were in CIA custody.

Sorry, I just do not trust Rumsfeld's Dept of Defense to honor this decree. Without oversight, how are we to know this just isn't shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic?

The only victory I see in this is the admission that there have been extralegal CIA prisoners and that the Judge who ruled against BushCo a few weeks ago did so in accordance with the law. It is an admission of guilt.

[warrens]

13. Are preznit dont need to oboy no lause!!!!

Ony you commeez got a oboy the lause.

[Marie26]

14. The rule of law making a comeback? nt