U.S. & NATO Secret Prisons
following evidence and information regarding U.S. and NATO Secret Prisons has been submitted on behalf of David Chase Taylor to the government of
Switzerland via the Migration Office of the Canton of Zürich on numerous occasions.
Given the political ramifications and subsequent blowback of the The Nuclear Bible, especially in revealing and postponing a nuclear terror attack upon the United States, there is
little doubt that the life and safety of David Chase Taylor is now at stake.
Expected Retaliation from Intelligence Services such as CIA, MI5 or Mossad:
1. Taylor may be TORTURED in
retaliation for his journalistic endeavors
The following news articles confirm the fears of David Chase Taylor and substantiate without a doubt that Secret Prisons are in fact being operated within the United States, U.S. territories, and within NATO nations.
Title: Americans Will Be Transferred To Foreign Prisons Under NDAA
Date: December 21, 2011
Source: Russia Today
Abstract: If you’re upset that congressional approval of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 can send you away to military prisons and be tortured in America, don’t worry — it could be worse.
The US could send you somewhere else.
No, really. They could. And they can. Anywhere else, too. Really.
While the bill that left Capitol Hill last week and awaits authorization from US President Barack Obama allows for the United States to indefinitely detain and torture American citizens suspected of aiding enemy forces, one provision in the bill specifies that that detention doesn’t necessarily have to occur domestically — nor does it have to be in a foreign prison run by the US.
The ongoing detention of foreign terror suspects at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has been a hot topic since the War on Terror began, with American military authorities torturing could-be criminals without ever bringing them to trial. An exposé years earlier on the Abu Ghraib facility in Iraq revealed how American troops were subjecting detainees to disgusting, inhumane conditions; conditions which left some dead without ever going to trial. While Abu Ghraib has since been shut down, Guantanamo Bay continues to hold suspected criminals despite a promise to Obama to shut it down.
When the commander-in-chief inks his name to NDAA FY2012, Americans can be on their way to the same torture cells that have kept al-Qaeda and Taliban-linked terrorists for the last decade. It’s now been revealed, however, that US citizens and anyone suspected of a crime against America can be sent all over the world.
Under the legislation, the president has the power to transfer suspected terrorists "to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."
China? Sure. Iran? Why not! North Korea? That’s a possibility too. David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, tells Mother Jones that this was an authority that the president has had before, but only under the new NDAA is the legislation endorsed and insured that it could be applied to Americans.
"If the president could lawfully transfer a German prisoner of war to a foreign country, then in theory he could do the same thing with an American prisoner of war," Glazier says.
Under the Feinstein Amendment imposed under NDAA FY2012, the Democratic senator from California proposed a law which would not change “existing law” with regards to detaining Americans. As Mother Jones notes, however, the jury is still out on what exactly “existing law” is when it comes to the topic, with those suspected of hostilities against America already being imprisoned without trial — citizen and otherwise. Both US-born Bradley Manning has been under military watch, isolation and torture for nearly two years, and the same has applied to a countless number of suspected terrorists at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.
Al Franken, a Democrat senator from Minnesota, wrote in an op-ed last week that the provisions put in NDAA such as Feinstein Amendment were enough for some lawmakers to sign onto the legislation, but he said the final draft was still “simply unacceptable.”
“These provisions are
inconsistent with the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the
system our Founders established. And while I did in fact vote for an
earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the
final version would be significantly improved. That didn't happen, and
so I could not support the final bill,” wrote Franken (Russia Today, 2011).
Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".
The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.
The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.
"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."
There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.
The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".
Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.
"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."
Graham added that it was right that Americans should be subject to the detention law as well as foreigners. "It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next," he said. "And when they say, 'I want my lawyer,' you tell them, 'Shut up. You don't get a lawyer.'"
Other senators supported the new powers on the grounds that al-Qaida was fighting a war inside the US and that its followers should be treated as combatants, not civilians with constitutional protections.
But another conservative senator, Rand Paul, a strong libertarian, has said "detaining citizens without a court trial is not American" and that if the law passes "the terrorists have won".
"We're talking about American citizens who can be taken from the United States and sent to a camp at Guantánamo Bay and held indefinitely. It puts every single citizen American at risk," he said. "Really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us? The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly named Patriot Act, is that our pre-9/11 police powers were insufficient to stop terrorism. This is simply not borne out by the facts."
Paul was backed by Senator Dianne Feinstein.
"Congress is essentially authorising the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," she said. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."
Paul said there were already strong laws against support for terrorist groups. He noted that the definition of a terrorism suspect under existing legislation was so broad that millions of Americans could fall within it.
"There are laws on the books now that characterise who might be a terrorist: someone missing fingers on their hands is a suspect according to the department of justice. Someone who has guns, someone who has ammunition that is weatherproofed, someone who has more than seven days of food in their house can be considered a potential terrorist," Paul said. "If you are suspected because of these activities, do you want the government to have the ability to send you to Guantánamo Bay for indefinite detention?"
Under the legislation suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities". They will have the right to appear once a year before a committee that will decide if the detention will continue.
The Senate is expected to give final approval to the bill before the end of the week. It will then go to the president, who previously said he would block the legislation not on moral grounds but because it would "cause confusion" in the intelligence community and encroached on his own powers.
But on Wednesday the White House said Obama had lifted the threat of a veto after changes to the law giving the president greater discretion to prevent individuals from being handed to the military.
Critics accused the president of caving in again to pressure from some Republicans on a counter-terrorism issue for fear of being painted in next year's election campaign as weak and of failing to defend America.
Human Rights Watch said that by signing the bill Obama would go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.
"The paradigm of the war on terror has advanced so far in people's minds that this has to appear more normal than it actually is," Malinowski said. "It wasn't asked for by any of the agencies on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism in the United States. It breaks with over 200 years of tradition in America against using the military in domestic affairs."
In fact, the heads of several security agencies, including the FBI, CIA, the director of national intelligence and the attorney general objected to the legislation. The Pentagon also said it was against the bill.
The FBI director, Robert Mueller, said he feared the law could compromise the bureau's ability to investigate terrorism because it would be more complicated to win co-operation from suspects held by the military.
"The possibility looms that we will lose opportunities to obtain co-operation from the persons in the past that we've been fairly successful in gaining," he told Congress.
Civil liberties groups say the FBI and federal courts have dealt with more than 400 alleged terrorism cases, including the successful prosecutions of Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", Umar Farouk, the "underwear bomber", and Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber".
Elements of the law are so legally confusing, as well as being constitutionally questionable, that any detentions are almost certain to be challenged all the way to the supreme court.
Malinowski said "vague language" was deliberately
included in the bill in order to get it passed. "The very lack of
clarity is itself a problem. If people are confused about what it means,
if people disagree about what it means, that in and of itself makes it
bad law," he said (The Guardian, 2011).
Tittle: The CIA's Most Secret Prison Revealed
Date: December 8, 2011
Source: Russia Today
Abstract: In the historic city of Bucharest, the CIA tortured and interrogated high-risk terrorists for years in a basement prison, under the nose of roughly two million Romanians.
An investigation carried out by reporters for the Associated Press led to the news organization revealing on Thursday that in the years after the September 11 terror attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency operated an underground holding center for some of the most sought after alleged terrorists. There in a small six-cell jail, prisoners such as al-Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were beaten and detained, all unbeknownst to the citizens of Romania or American authorities outside of the CIA.
This revelation from the AP comes after officials have adamantly denied any such institution in the past.
"No, no. Impossible, impossible," Adrian Camarasan of the National Registry Office for Classified Information told Germany’s ARD television in an earlier interview. While Camarasan dismissed claims of a top-secret jail, former intelligence officials speaking under condition of anonymity now tell the AP that the prison did in fact exist, and did so right in the basement of the National Registry’s headquarters.
The National Registry Office for Classified Information, also known as ORNISS, has operated in the Bucharest building for years. In its annals are classified files pertaining to NATO and European Union intelligence. A known government installation, townspeople avoided the structure and thus the CIA had the perfect cover to open the prison. The first detainees came arrived in 2006, and despite being mere blocks from a major roadway and active train tracks, the top-secret cells beneath the first floor of the ORNISS building went perfectly undetected — until now.
In those cells, insiders tell the AP, prisoners were interrogated once installed in the compound. They were subjected to sleep deprivation, doused with water and slapped by intelligence officers. Detainees were kept in small cells erected atop springs, as to disorient the prisoners as well.
Though the prison was kept open until 2006, not all that lasted through it were freed in the end. Some were returned to their home countries. Others, like Mohammed, were sent to Guantanamo Bay. In September of that year, then-President George W Bush said that Mohammed had been under the custody of the CIA for questioning but never revealed where that exactly was. The next year the al-Qaeda operative would confess from Gitmo his role as a 9/11 mastermind and has been detained in the elusive military prison under guard of the American armed forces ever since.
In their investigation of the prison, AP reporters were able to link CIA-chartered jets from Bucharest into other locales, including Guantanamo and other sites of known prisons.
Only those speaking
anonymously to the AP have revealed the true nature and location of the
Bucharest prison. When asked for comment, the CIA officially declined.
"There have been years of official denials," Dick Marty, a Swiss lawmaker who investigated claims of CIA secret prisons for the Council of Europe. "We are at last beginning to learn what really happened in Bucharest" (Russia Today, 2011).
Title: Senate Wants The Military To Lock You Up Without Trial
Date: December 1, 2011
Abstract: Here’s the best thing that can be said about the new detention powers the Senate has tucked into next year’s defense bill: They don’t force the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial. They just let the military do that. And even though the leaders of the military and the spy community have said they want no such power, the Senate is poised to pass its bill as early as tonight.
There are still changes swirling around the Senate, but this looks like the basic shape of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Someone the government says is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force” can be held in military custody “without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Those hostilities are currently scheduled to end the Wednesday after never. The move would shut down criminal trials for terror suspects.
But far more dramatically, the detention mandate to use indefinite military detention in terrorism cases isn’t limited to foreigners. It’s confusing, because two different sections of the bill seem to contradict each other, but in the judgment of the University of Texas’ Robert Chesney — a nonpartisan authority on military detention — “U.S. citizens are included in the grant of detention authority.”
So despite the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end. And because the Senate is using the bill that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it’s pretty likely to pass.
It would be one thing if the military was clamoring for the authority to become the nation’s jailer. But to the contrary: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opposes the maneuver. So does CIA Director David Petraeus, who usually commands deference from senators in both parties. Pretty much every security official has lined up against the Senate detention provisions, from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to FBI Director Robert Mueller, who worry that they’ll get in the way of FBI investigations of domestic terrorists. President Obama has promised to veto the bill.
Which is ironic. After all, Obama approved of the execution without trial of Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Qaida’s YouTube preacher, based entirely on the unproven assertion that Awlaki was dangerous. Awlaki was an American citizen. So Obama thinks he has the right to kill Americans the government says are terrorists, but he doesn’t want the military to lock them up forever without trial. OK then.
Weirder still, the bill’s chief architect, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), tried to persuade skeptics that the bill wasn’t so bad. His pitch? “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” he said on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill would just let the government detain a citizen in military custody, not force it to do that. Reassured yet?
But there’s a reason this measure goes into the defense bill: Voting
against the defense bill is usually considered political suicide. That’s
why the bill will almost certainly pass tonight. If Obama backs down
from his veto threat, get ready to see Americans at Guantanamo Bay (Wired, 2011).