On this board there have been debates about the use and effectiveness of extraordinary renditions and the use of torture techniques during interrogations, several threads focussed on individual cases (like Arar and Khalid el-Masri) in which not only some gruesome details came to surface, but also the fact that U.S. intelligence is far from being infallible. Besides that it, although the Bush administration is working very hard to proove otherwise, this whole program of extraordinary renditions is violating international laws and human rights standards.



Up to this day I have not really seen any positive effect of this rendition program (besides some unevidenced claims that it has prevented terrorist threats). The negative effects are abundant: it has damaged U.S. reputation in the whole world, it has lead to worldwide condemnations and it has opened dangerous precedents, just to name a few.

The questions that have been on my mind for quite a while:

- Why do Americans, people who are characterized by their love of freedom and justice, tolerate that their government is carrying out extraordinary renditions?
-Why is there no national debate regarding this policy?
-Why is there no outrage about these practises?
-Is there really no other alternative to fight international terrorism?

- Why do Americans, people who are characterized by their love of freedom and justice, tolerate that their government is carrying out extraordinary renditions?

Is that really how Americans are characterized? Its odd, but these days I am apt to see Americans characterized as a bunch of fat, lazy slobs who make up 5% of the planets population yet consume 25% of its resources. And I don't see many people subscribing to the notions of American sympthy with global issues much at all any more.

What I do see is a nation gripped by indifference to political issues and much given to its own internal conventional wisdoms that, more often than not ignore the outside world as either of no consequence or a direct threat to 'the American way of life'.


-Why is there no national debate regarding this policy?

Indifference. Revolutions are not carried out by the well fed and questions are seldom asked by the complacent.


-Why is there no outrage about these practises?

How many American are even aware of them?


-Is there really no other alternative to fight international terrorism?

Yes. There is, but in order to actually deal with any real life problem you have to look at and deal with the cause of the problem and that is something the USA is unwilling and unable to do. Far better to bomb the barbarians into submission than ponder the question as to why the barbarians are massing at the gates...

This is an excellent and thorough article that does a good job of presenting the history of this secret program. Of course since this is a secret program getting full and accurate information is impossible. link

- Why do Americans, people who are characterized by their love of freedom and justice, tolerate that their government is carrying out extraordinary renditions?

America, like any free society has citizens with varying definitions of freedom. One of the strong demands of American citizens from their government is providing security. Defending our borders, since World War II, has also meant going abroad and dealing with gathering threats before they reach our shores.

Many Americans believe that the government should do whatever it takes to protect America and American interests around the world. This, for many, has become an expectation and rights of Americans do not extend in this view to rights of foreign nationals. The CIA was developed in many ways to do what we can't do while following democratic ideals. It is a contradiction of American foreign policy.

For most Americans, extraordinary renditions are a story that is out there that is not necessarily true, or that has not been presented to individuals in enough detail to respond with outrage. For myself, I am disgusted by the practice but I have not taken to the streets to demand an end to the program.

-Why is there no national debate regarding this policy?

Politically, this is a touch issue to tackle. For a politician to make a strong stand to try to stop extraordinary rendition, they will face vitriolic counter-attacks for more nationalistic figures claiming essentially, "And that is exactly why you should not be left in charge of our foreign policy. You lack the toughness to do what it takes to protect American citizens from this "evil-doers." And the irony of participating in evil-doing and acting in collaborations with nations that we describe as the enemy (like Syria) in our public foreign policy is lost on the defenders of such a policy. Just like in the days of the heights of McCarthyism when individuals who knoew better didn't dare put their political capital on the line and try to stop the unfounded allegation for fear of being called a pinko, today too many prominent politicians don't act because programs like this are seen as the way to keep America safe.

What I find interesting is the article I linked to posits that an early rendition operation in Albania led directly to the bombings in Nigeria and Kenya. Yet we always assert that any attacks against the United States are unprovoked and at the same time we place a high level of expectation on the CIA.

-Why is there no outrage about these practices?

Sadly, I think a majority of Americans wants the CIA out there using the tools of the police state abroad to stop potential threats even if it means acting in reprehensible ways. This is partly because such programs are described as being used only against those who would act in ways to attack the country. The problem of course, is that these programs afford no due process system to prove that only "those who deserve this treatment" (if there is indeed such a category of criminal) are being treated so. We are essentially subsidizing torture programs around the world so that we can benefit from the results. This is despite the fact that the usefulness of information gathered by torture seems to be hughly suspect.

-Is there really no other alternative to fight international terrorism?

I am a big believer in using the criminal justice approach to shutting down terrorism. I believe that we could use overt programs that are effectively supervised by our courts and use the methods of trials to determine the status of being being detained and then put them into needed categories within which the individuals are afforded the human rights of being allowed access to a legal defense and in almost all cases, being allowed a trial or at least a day in court.

We could develop a better system of international cooperation to get terrorists arrested and model good democratic methods instead of the eye for an eye approach. OF course this rendition system does not allow for criminal prosecution and it is usually a way to kill people that somebody wants killed.

(From the above linked article)


In summary, this program is evidence of our nation working from fear and a demand that we do everything possible to stop future attacks. This places pressure on us to abandon our principle and values in the name of national security. I argue that the two or reconcilable. But this program clearly is a black mark on the conduct of the United States and for many observers it is simply evidence of the credibility gap between American rhetoric, which spouts out truth, justice, the American way, freedom, liberty, city upon a hill, defenders of the free world, make the world safe fro democracy, and the reality that America more often uses Machiavellian policies while spouting these ideals. We support dictatorships, we arm thugs, we have relationships with evil-doers to get our dirty work done. We have a long history of dirty deeds in our foreign policy. For that reason, the period from 1975 to 1995 or so was one in which few Americans looked upon the CIA as an institution to invest more resources in. With the rise of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, we have raised the expectations for the performance of our intelligence agencies and have nearly uninamimously shouted for better results and we have been almost 100% silent in voicing any concerns about the methods used to improve the performance of the CIA. This has translated into tremendous political pressure on the CIA, less oversight, and more resources.

- Why do Americans, people who are characterized by their love of freedom and justice, tolerate that their government is carrying out extraordinary renditions?

Well, quite frankly, we, as a nation, tend to puff up ourselves a bit, and don't do near enough self-inspection to make sure we live up to our ideals. Look at the race issue alone- it took us nearly 150 years to go from slavery to actually allowing blacks the same access to society as whites, and we still have large segments of our society that denies that racism even exists towards blacks- we have high ideals, but, as a society, we rarely enforce those ideals as a society. This is a classic example, and most of our foriegn policy meddling, whether dem or pub , has anything to do with our ideals, and, in fact, is usually quite evil in nature. We topple democratically elected officials to put in despots, like with Pinochet for instance.

Ameircan's pronouncement about human rights and justice and our actual behavior are two quite different things, ESPECIALLY when it comes to foriegn policy.

-Why is there no national debate regarding this policy?

Because we are a nation of violent hypocrites at this point. When we condemn torture, and don't participate in it, I will change that statement.

-Why is there no outrage about these practises?

See above. It took years before there was any real "national outrage" over lynchings in the south, and church bombings, and killing of black children. Only now, almost 30 years or even more later, are the poeple that commited these atrocities being brought to trial, and it is very difficult to get convictions on these guys because of the time that has lapsed.

I mean, these guys killed and mutilated blacks- and we are only now getting around to prosecuting them?

It makes a horrible, but accurate example, of the disconnect Americans have between thier actions and thier words.

-Is there really no other alternative to fight international terrorism?

Well, it has certainly been the best way to work as a recruiter for our enemies- each one of these guys, women and children that we torture have families, and eventually, those families get the truth, and it creates a whole new army of folks that hate America due to our actions abroad.

I am hoping that the country of my birth and whom I love will face our past sins, repent, and stop doing this- but I am more than a bit disinheartened by the fact that some folks still support this type of behavior, publically and loudly.

As others have pointed out- torture rarely, very rarely results in good information.

Because it WORKS and we would like to prevent another 9/11. The idea that we do this just to “torture” people is not realistic or proved. We have experts all over the world and allies as well who want to interview theses prisoners. To bring them all back to the US would not be productive.
Terrorist training manuals tell every captured person to claim they were “tortured” if they get the opportunity. “rough treatment that is not torture is fine with me – we have no obligation to make these monsters comfortable. It is disgusting that The US get bashed for everything and the terrorists get far less press for the torture, mutilation, and murder of 100s of thousands of civilians and uniformed military.

CIA chief says over 5,000 terrorists captured or killed since 9/11
More than 5,000 terrorists have been captured or killed in the 5 years since 9/11 terror attacks, CIA Director Michael Hayden said Monday.
"Al Qaida's core operational leadership has been decimated, and their successors are in hiding or on the run," Hayden said when he addressed CIA employees at the fifth anniversary of the catastrophic attacks which claimed nearly 3,000 lives.
While acknowledging 9/11 attacks have dealt an "unforgettable blow" to his agency, he said CIA's cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies has led to many successes in breaking up terrorists' cells and dismantling of al Qaida.
In such a way many large-scale terror plots have been foiled, although some schemes have succeeded beyond U.S. territories, said Hayden.
Shortly before his remarks, al Qaida's number two Zayman Al- Zawahiri released a video tape threatening new attacks.

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200609/1...912_301941.html
http://www.dni.gov/announcements/content/T...ineeProgram.pdf

I have several problems with the above mentioned statement. 1.) it neglects actual facts and concerns that have been presented in former posts. 2.) there are a lot of unevidenced claims which are not even backed up with some sort of link or story. 3.) it tries to demonize this whole issue by portaying it as unjustified U.S. bashing. 4.) it confuses this specific policy with the overall international anti-terrorist policy.

1.) "Because it WORKS and we would like to prevent another 9/11."

First off, how do you know that it works? What evidence do you have to support this claim? Dan Coleman argues that extraordinary rendition followed by "rough"/ torture interrogation techniques don't work. He clearly points out to the fact that due process offers better results.
link

link

Besides that it has also been demonstrated that this policy has brought the U.S. in serious difficulties.

link

Colin Powells address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a preëmptive war against Iraq was founded on statements the high-ranking Al Qaida official Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi made after he was rendered to Egypt. This information turned out to be part of a false confession just to please his interrogators so that his brutal mistreatment would stop.

Another one that Eeyore already pointed out:


Terrorist training manuals tell every captured person to claim they were “tortured” if they get the opportunity.

Again how do you know this? Even if you are correct about this, how do you reconcile this with the fact that two innocent people el-Masri and Arar, who have never received any terrorist training and have no ties with terrorist organisations, are also claiming that they have been tortured?

rough treatment that is not torture is fine with me – we have no obligation to make these monsters comfortable
So you are an opponent of waterboarding then? Because some experts consider this interrogation method the CIA is using as a form of torture.
link

It is disgusting that The US get bashed for everything and the terrorists get far less press for the torture, mutilation, and murder of 100s of thousands of civilians and uniformed military.

You know what is disgusting is the fact that so many American are apparently okay with the fact that human beings are being held in secret detention camps without any chance of due process, where they receive brutal treatments, are being considered less than animals, stripped of all their universal human rights. Eeyore made a good attempt to explain why the majority of people in the U.S. is not outraged by this inhumane policy that has been carried out in their name for the supposed protection of their national security, but in the eyes of an outsider, like me, this (in all probability accurate) explanation only leads to more disillusions.

editted to insert links.

As my post states we 5000 captured or killed. Did you see this above? And where is it proved that we did not use “due process” on the people held overseas? It is used at GITMO extensively and I am not against it. All I am saying is that I don’t necessarily disagree with “rough treatment” if it “works” in specific cases. Holding a person overseas or in cooperation with allied governments IMO does not prove he was tortured.



They are charged as enemy combatants or terrorists. What is “due process”. We are not required to give them trials but we are doing it anyway. What outrages ME sir is the apparent lack of regard by people like you at the outrages inhumane treatment of civilians and military alike by the terrorists. More than torture, which is the standard for these monsters, is what our soldiers get. They are tortured and then mutilated beyond recognition. Women and children are executed like animals. Why we give any of them Geneva Convention treatment is lost on me.
Law professors Jack Goldsmith and Eric Posner think that trials for terrorist prisoners at Gitmo and Bagram in Afghanistan are unwise. They degenerate into circuses, are used to rally other terrorist supporters, and are often hard to actually try. They have a different solution...
The Supreme Court has made clear that the conflicts with al-Qaeda and the Taliban are governed by the laws of war, and the laws of war permit detention of enemy soldiers without charge or trial until hostilities end. The purpose of wartime detention is not to punish but to prevent soldiers from returning to the battlefield. A legitimate wartime detainee is dangerous, like a violent mental patient subject to civil confinement, and that is reason enough to hold him. This has been the legal justification for terrorist detentions to date, and it will almost certainly be the basis for future detentions.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoul..._for_terrorists

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1113-07.htm

Ted

+

Thats an interesting measure of success Ted, considering that todays count of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 stands at 7,388.

As for being 'decimated', you do know that means the execution of ten percent? ...right? Its not exactly inspiring to hear that al qaeda's leadership has been reduced by ten percent... though perhaps Mr Hayden meant something more dramatic and he's just not very good at conveying his point without relying on buzz words like 'decimation'.

Everything?

This thread is about a very specific practice Ted. Its not about 'everything', its about abducting people and hiding them away in secret places to torture them for information, regardless of whether or not they might actually be innocent. You see, it ought not to matter that terrorists automatically claim they have been tortured. It ought to be that we can know with full assurance that they have not, no matter what they say. We ought to be able to trust in our own military and our politicians and have every faith that they uphold the laws we say we believe in... the laws we wrote and swore to uphold.

I absolutely agree.

How can we stand up to the world and state that our aims are to bring democracy and freedom to supressed countries, when everything we do screams the opposite?

No matter how often we insist we are humane and rational and that we are somehow different to the terrorists, we glaringly show we are, to all intents and purposes using similar tactics.

If, such a camp was being maintained in any other country, we would be mortified.

In my own personal opinion, if only one detainee is innocent, it is one too many.

If these detainees are suspected of crime, bring them to trial, deal with them and punish them, to any decent human being, the present practice surely cannot be acceptable.

As for being 'decimated', you do know that means the execution of ten percent? ...right? Its not exactly inspiring to hear that al qaeda's leadership has been reduced by ten percent... though perhaps Mr Hayden meant something more dramatic and he's just not very good at conveying his point without relying on buzz words like 'decimation'.


Obviously my data is from the article and we have continued to decimate them. How wonderful. And it does not mean “execution” unless you consider, in many cases, a 500 Lb bomb an “executioner”. In any case that is what this is about isn’t it?




And you have proof of this practice? How widespread is it moif?
As I said keeping people overseas is good operationally and has been successful. IMO we do not “torture” them for many reasons one of which has been pointed out – it does not work moif. So if we are successful then by definition we are not doing this. As I said rough treatment when needed is IMO just fine for these monsters.



We give them MORE than the Geneva Convention requires and they don't deserve that. If you want "jury trials" for them then - good luck - it will never happen and shouldn't.

Yes, I have seen the number you provided and I already stated that you are confusing this specific policy with the overall global campaign against terrorism. Extraordinary rendition is only one of the many aspects of the war against terror. We are not talking about 5000 terrorists captured or killed, we are talking about roughly 150 people here.

link

These people have not had the privilege of due process Ted. They were detained, rendered to countries that are known for their torture practises or are being imprissoned in some obscure secret U.S. "black site". They have no contact with the outside world, they have no right to an attorney, and all are stripped of even the most basic human rights. Besides that they are interrogated by people who do not have a problem using torture methods to get information of which they do not even know if the detainee even has it. This is not the due process Dan Coleman was talking about. As a matter of fact this whole program of extraordinary renditions is violating international laws and human rights standards on a large scale.



They are charged by whom Ted? By some CIA official that won't give any reasoning why somebody is held because he can comfortably hide behind secrecy and will only say "it is a matter of national security"? What happens if people get arrested based on misinformation? Information that was the product of extreme interrogation and even torture? Information another detainee gave just to please his brutal interrogators? How do we know why somebody is charged? The Arar and el-Masri case clearly show that the intelligence agencies are not infallible, as a matter of fact they show that huge mistakes have been made.
And what is exactly an enemy combatant? This is a convenient phrase that has been artificially fabricated, by a small, hawkish group of political appointed lawyers under the guidance of John C. Yoo, to evade international laws and the Geneva Conventions.

Just an example how twisted the mind set of this mister Yoo is:
link

And besides all of this there remains the fact that many of these "enemy combatants" / terrorists who went through the rendition program have never been publicly charged with any crime.


Ted, this statement is inappropriate. How did you came to the conclusion that I am not outraged by the actions of terrorists? Have I ever made such an argument? I will tell you one thing: I am outraged at every crime against humanity. I will never approve of any terrorist act, I am distgusted by the way the Taliban treats their women, but I am also outraged at the U.S. for maintaining this illegal and inhumane policy of extraordinary renditions. I do not use double standards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I totally agree with you on this one Nina.

P.S. Welcome to by the way

Ted.

Well I consider a 500lb bomb to be a vey inapropriate weapon for dealing with terrorists. In fact, its about as inapropriate a weapon for such a task as I can think of, short of a 1,000lb bomb... terrorists hide amongst the civilian population and are a class of criminals. To be objective in one's perspective, following your logic, the police would be well employed to carpet bomb urban trouble zones...

And for what its worth, decimation does refer to mass execution. Specifically. If you want to argue the meaning of the word then don't whine at me, take it up with the man who employed it in this context.


Two European nations have issued arrest warrants on the basis of their investigations. Thats good enough for me Ted. Are you saying it doesn't happen? Prove it...

Its a good job the Europeans are not as hot headed as the CIA I think or else we might have to discuss what it means when European agents kidnap innocent CIA officials and drag them to third party country's for interogation.

The bottom line is, you are breaking our laws and your telling us now that this is justifiable. Well I'm sorry but thats not your right to decide. If the USA has violated European laws then it must answer for the consequences, as must any European politician who allowed this to happen.

Furthermore. By carrying out such practices as these, you are undermining the very principles your nation claims to hold dear. You can't sink much lower than that.


So, are you suggesting keeping a person locked away, on the presumption of guilt alone is some how justifiable if no terrorist attack happens?

What happens when an attack on US soil does happen? You think it won't?


Why not? They are as human as you and have the same rights as you. Your hatred of them does not change that.

Ted, I'm glad a good pro-rendition voice came in here. There clearly are arguments to be made on the side of sacrificing idealism for pragmatic self-interest. I also think that rhetoric is often used to try to cow those who want to take a balanced look at this issue.



Here the question is how do we know this particular program works? Your links don't clearly argue that these successes were attributable to the rendition program.


Vaguely quoting terrorist training manuals does not persuade me much. However, don;t you think disinformation would also be in our generic manual?



Okay, now here is where I have to ask, and I ask because I think we would sincerely answer these question differently no matter the spin put to it.

Is it okay for the United States to use terrorism and the techniques of monsters in hunting down those we deem our enemies? Doesn't that make us terrorists to, if you think we should act in this way? (Are you arguing that we should never engage in torture? Or that we should be not admit to it? Or that the rendition program is not allowing any torture?)

Shouldn't the world hold the United States to a higher standard than the conduct of monsters and terrorists?

Finally, before we begin engaging in rough treatment and kidnappings of individuals, do we have any system that determines whether they are indeed monsters or terrorists? Or is this a risk we need to take to prevent future attacks on the United States?



This was a short story. But you'll excuse me if I don't trust the CIA report on this. How do we know that these people were indeed terrorists? By what process was this determined. I sure hope it was better than the way we counted VC in Vietnam.


Ted, I am not seeking out a flame war here. I recognize that you have not necessarily defended torture in your post. I am truly hoping to get you to explore your position on this in more detail.

Yes and those 150 helped capture or kill many more. Rendition takes place with the help and support of EU countries. IMO most are not tortured since we know torture doesn’t work.



Terrorists don’t get due process and never will – or an attorney. If mistakes in taking a person were made then we are responsible and should pay compensation but I do notice that in many cases the person “rendered” was wanted and often was rendered back to his country of origin where they are known and can be better dealt with. The idea that they were sent to certain places just to torture them is nor proved and makes no sense Renger.


Since the numbers are so small it is really not worth discussing. Prior to 9/11 a terrorist was safe anywhere in the world – today they can be pursued and I for one am in favor of doing just that. Are you claiming Renger that we just picked up theses 150 people and that they were all innocent of anything?




RIGHT. So show me the thread you started or your posts Renger where you detail the atrocities of theses monsters and express outrage. Sure you are outraged, but you direct it at the US for perhaps being aggressive in pursuing terrorists (with the help of foreign governments) and making A mistake. Meanwhile thousands of civilians are butchered by these people, heads are severed from live civilians and gleefully broadcast, and US military personnel are captured and EXECUTED and MUTILATED beyond recognition.

I say if it can save the life of one soldier or civilian we render anyone anywhere who might have information that can help do that. That is my opinion.

Could you please provide some credible evidence for this Ted? Or is this just a hunch? The problem is that in order to prove your statement is correct we would need a complete list of the people who have been rendered and we would need more information in what way the information obtained from these secret interrogations have lead to the arrest of others and we would need solid arguments that this information is 100% credible. Unfortunately we do not have this kind of information at all. (or lets say I would be very suprised if you could provide it). Your statement is thus unprovable.


This is a strange logical conclusion. You argue that because it has turned out that torture doesn't result in obtaining trustworthy information, the U.S. does not need to use extreme interrogation methods. Although I agree with you that torture doesn't work and belief the U.S. should never use such interrogation techniques, all the evidence we have points in a different direction. It appears that even though the CIA is well aware of the negative effects of extreme rough interrogation methods, its intelligence officials are still using these techniques on suspected terrorist / "enemy combatant" detainees themselves or they let external interrogators do these things for them. If you want to disprove this, be my guest. Read the article Eeyore provided and try to debunk one for one all the cases of mistreatment and torture you find there.



First of all the fact that we are talking about 150 people does not mean that this appaling policy should not be discussed. This whole extraordinary rendition program stinks and it should be exposed for what it is: a gross crime against humanity. If the U.S. is not willing to come clean with it and take steps to counter this policy, it will come back to haunt you eventually.
I do not disagree with you that international terrorists should be pursued and I can not say whether all these 150 people are innocent. In all probably some dangerous terrorists have been taken into cutsody. But that doesn't mean we should allow this policy of extraordinary renditions as it stands now to continue any longer. It violates numerous international treaties. There are other ways to fight terrorism.



What kind of answer is this? I have no problems starting an thread in which the atrocities of terrorist are being debated. I dare to say that everybody who would post in such a thread would agree with eachother that those deeds are indeed atrocities. That would be the only understandable and logical reaction. The reason why I started this particular thread is that, although everybody is horrified by crimes committed by terrorist, hardly anybody seems to be worried, appalled or outraged by the things the good old U.S. of A. is doing at the same time. Unfortunately the fact that only very few people post in this thread is a good indication that the majority of U.S. citizens apparently and incorrectly don't see this as a big issue.



And this is exactly the type of reaction that makes me feel so uncomfortable. The complete lack of respect towards human rights is very frightening and very concerning.

link

Yes it is speculation – based on the fact that taking people like this is dangerous and expensive and would not be done on a hunch that the person has info. And speaking of speculation the entire story about people renderd so they could be tortured is just that and for the same reasons. Thanks for making my point.



Again you mix “rough” interrogation with torture. They are not the same. Rough interrogation IMO is entirely appropriate and we have little real proof anyone was tortured. And if they were our government should never send people to that country again.




And why is it a crime against humanity? If person X kill, tortures, mutilates civilians including women and children or directs others to do so and is hiding in country C are you telling me that we should not go after this monster??? You cannot mean that. So we are the bad guys for going after these monsters?? The logic blows my mind and I do NOT agree in the strongest terms.



Ya sure. The entire left pounds the hell out of the US but its nice to know you realize who we are after and why we are doing theses things. Why are there no threads? No from you but anyone who beats up on the US? Odd isn't it?




I am not condoning torture. What I do condone is rendition and rough effective interrogation of these monsters. The alternative, as in the past, is that they are allowed to go FREE and kill more of us and THAT will no longer fly – at least for now. If you murder Americans we WILL come get you and we will bring you down. We learned the absolute stupidity of doing it your way all through the 90s and lost 3,ooo civilians.

"making your point"? Ted, I just tried to counter your unevidenced, unproven opinion that the rendition of those 150 people helped "to capture or kill many more". I challenged you to come with clear evidence, but I already knew you would be unable to give any facts supporting your claim. I just pointed out how unevidenced your whole claim was to begin with. My point, that the extraordinary rendition program should be stopped because of its inhumane treatment of prisoners and because of the fact it goes against numerous international treaties and international laws, is not based on speculations. It is based on the stories that leak out, stories U.S. Intelligence officials did not want the public to know. Stories people like Arar and el-Masri have told the public, stories that have been backed up by even U.S. experts.
Up till no you have not given us any evidence or facts that supports your opinion or evidence that would counter the arguments of people like Arar, el-Masri, Dan Coleman etc.


What kind of methods, in your eyes, fall within rough interrogation? And what do you see as torture?



Ted, have you even tried to read the articles? Read the introduction please. Besides the fact whether or not the U.S. Intelligence is actually using torture, the act of rendition, with its secret detention and enforced disappearances, is itself a violation of multiple human rights and humanitarian laws and a offense against human dignity.


Yes why are there no threads? Why did you not start a thread about the atrocities of terrorist? Start one, I will participate in it and you will see that I am disgusted by their acts. Besides that, why should I start a thread like that? just because I started a thread about this dirty policy of extraordinary rendition? Is that a new rule? You can only criticize the U.S. if you also at the same time criticize other people and countries.

,And stories that leak out are facts? Why is that the presumption. You have no more proof then I do and if you read some of what I posted you would know that in many cases, perhaps most, other governments help us. Captured terrorist training manuals instruct all captured and freed to claim torture. Standard procedure. And I say again since it is well known torture does not work why would we use it??




Sleep depravation, loud music, long hours of questioning, uncomfortable cells. But we have no idea what is done and I don’t believe the terrorists or the leaked stories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4415132.stm




Ya right so what is preferable is to allow the monsters to go free as long as they are in places that do not have extradition treaties with the US. Any “humanitarian law” that says you cannot pick up a monster who kills children and saws off the heads of civilians anywhere in the world – isn’t humanitarian.

Would you feel this was ok if the 3,000 dead people were from Amsterdam and your intel people knew where one or more of them was? My Dutch grandmother does’t and I am sure her father who died in Rotterdam fighting the Nazi would not either.

This is clearly US bashing. All detentions are secret and as I said when you go after the monsters you do what it takes and I support it strongly. You know what the alternative is – that they live free and KILL more innocent people which IMO is unacceptable.



Not worth it. Every time I mention it ,it gets blow off as irrelevant. They are “expected” to be monsters and we are “required” to be perfect in trying to stop them. The contradiction is obvious and in no war in HISTORY has the US or any other aemy ever done less harm than this one. And we are fighting monsters whose only rival is IMO Hitler and the death camps.

Hello Ted.

I am sorry to say this but, you clearly confuse 'US bashing' with genuine concern/ criticism of your present admins policy making.

Can you not see the fact that Guantanimo , a camp deliberately set up by the US admin in a location where normal democractic 'rules' would not apply, smacks of secrecy and deliberate underhandedness, this only compounds the feelings of the outside world that this admin had plans from the outset to carry out actions that are not conducive with normal humane detention practice.

I think you know in your heart that this is not acceptable by the way you deliberately shy away from really answering the questions put to you by others, instead you try to shift the goalposts ever further by detracting from your admins actions and focusing wholly on the actions of Islamic terrorists.

There may well be some detained who are in fact Islamic terrorists and probably are dangerous people but, that is no excuse to go against everything you stand for as a country and certainly no excuse for taking away the human rights of others.

How can you ever hope to win the hearts and minds of any country, let alone the middle east when you are on the one hand forcing democracy on others, on your terms, whilst blatently ignoring/failing to adhere to that same democracy yourselves?

I guess I'll bite on this topic. I'll just answer this one:

-Why is there no outrage about these practises?

I haven't taken to the streets because the evidence points to the fact that these suspects are not being abducted stealthily and without knowledge of their host governments, but their intelligence officials are actually working with the US, as active participants. For instance, in the case of Arar, when Canadian government officials attempted to retrieve this man from Syria, its own intelligence agency stepped in the way of the process and wouldn't allow it (for a while). In Italy, two senior Italian intelligence officials** were arrested for participating in the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (at the same time warrants were issued for American CIA officials involved).

In mid 2006, European lawmakers said they had discovered a 'widespread regular practice'' of human rights violations by the CIA in Europe: undeclared flights, spiriting citizens away without the authority of that government, ect. At the time, US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales acknowledged the United States' use of rendition flights but said that rendition was never used to transport a suspect to another country for the purpose of torture, and was in compliance with domestic and international law. Sure enough, later a European Parliament report implicated 11 European states of cooperation in the rendition program. It looks as though these secret flights had secret clearance, and these secret intelligence cooperation from the very countries they were spirited away from.

So, from where I stand, let me say that I disagree with anyone who believes that citizens can be deported from states without explicit approval and cooperation from those states. But that doesn't seem to be what has happened here. Intelligence officials from the governments themselves are participated in this exchange.

Ergo, I only have enough information to determine that I don't have enough information one way or the other. I see some politicians and the media saying one thing and then evidence points the other way. I categorically reject maltreatment and torture for any reason, but I do acknowledge that there are sound reasons for detaining people without an immediate public trial...because obviously much of the intelligence might hinge on the fact that associated operatives don't know that one of their own has been compromised.

I don't think we'll ever be able to point to exhibit A and say, "that was a rendition success story". For the simple fact that the eternal paradox of intelligence is that the exceptional success is also exceptionally secret. Obviously there is no way to "prove" rendition success because there is no way to prove (without full disclosure of information) what might have happened, but didn't. Governments can say they foiled an attack, but they can't say how and who is to prove that ANY attack was foiled other than the government's good word? THe logic collapses on itself. My "proof" is simply the fact that all of these national intelligence agencies seem to be in active participation with our CIA. That must indicate they know something I don't.

On the other hand, is maltreatment or abuse ever justified? No. The CIA should ensure that they are detained under humane conditions and not tortured. Furthermore, I believe it's imperative that there be strict controls placed on the planning, selection and execution of these extreme measures...the authority is too broad and there is too much lattitude now. It should be as it was prior to 9/11, when the transfers of individual prisoners required review and approval by interagency groups led by the White House, and were usually authorized to bring prisoners to the United States or to other countries to face eventual criminal charges.

**I'd be very interested if anyone who knows what happened to them. I'm betting the charges were dropped and this never went to trial.

Mrs. Pigpen you mean to tell me you're going to wait for facts and then use those facts to form an opinion on this subject? That's utterly mad! I mean seriously; what are you thinking? Using reason and logic combined with facts is a horribly dangerous and exclusionary way to go about business. Especially on the Internet.

You could literally rend the fabric of Internet Debate! Quite frankly, I am appalled at your stance. If we wait for facts, reason and logic while debating on the Internet one could reasonably expect that discussions would have to be slowed to a crawl while people are thoughtfully responding to one another! THIS IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!!!

The entire point of the Internet Debate is that any uniformed person can INSTANTLY spew any inane thought they have and offer it up as fact! LINKS Mrs. Pigpen LINKS! If you can link to it is true! For you to sit there typing from your comfy chair (while Mr Pigpen provides you with snacks - possibly a Cheeto or a doughnut (although rumor has it - foot rubs, truffles and champagne)) and attempt to EXCLUDE those that would hit Add Reply with no concern for reality or fairness is, well, it is despicable.

I implore you to re-think your position on this. I also implore, nay DEMAND, you immediately declare Rendition as bad as Beheading!

***

Ladies and Gentlemen of this has been a test of the sarcasm system. This only a test.

Actually I don’t see it that way at all. GITMO is a naval base and very secure. They also had the room. Most federal prisons are more crowded. And when you say normal democractic 'rules' would not apply what do you man? Captured enemies, this war or any other don’t’ get lawyers and all the rights of citizens – and the Geneva Convention does not require it.

The last story I heard by a reporter who visited talked about how they get inmates to be more talkative – namely special privileges and perks to make them more comfortable and talkative. In this case it is Bush bashing as well. IMO they should be tried by the military and if found guilty executed publicly. Lets remember as we get all teary-eyed about holding these men (with no TV I hear! – shocking) that they are part and parcel the group that murdered 3,000 Americans civilians in 2001. Go back and look at the pictures of our people jumping off the building. They are not being tortured – but I hope to god they are not being made comfortable either.





You lost me. Theses men were picked up (mostly) in Afghanistan and are enemy combatants. Most were shooting at our men – same for the “rendered” only they were the leaders. Now why would I feel bad about them being held?? They are all enimies. What angers me is that they have not been executed yet.

The torture and mistreatment in Iraqi jail has been punished as it should have. The number of prisoners mistreated by our men in miniscule even compared to our own war behavior in WWII. We are not perfect but we do NOT have a policy to torture prisoners.

In stark contrast out enemy gets far less press for the most barbaric treatment on earth. Explain this to me please.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The bodies of two U.S. soldiers found in Iraq Monday night were mutilated and booby-trapped, military sources said Tuesday.
The bodies also had been desecrated and a visual identification was impossible -- part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said.

Group claims killings
A claim posted on a Web site Tuesday said the soldiers were "slaughtered" in accordance with "God's will."
"We announce the good news to our Islamic nation that we executed God's will and slaughtered the two crusader animals we had in captivity," said the claim, reportedly from the Mujahedeen Shura Council, a group linked to al Qaeda.
"And God has given our Emir, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, the good fortune of carrying out the legitimate court's command in person."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/06/20/soldiers.missing/

Hello Ted.

You are well aware of my meaning regarding the ‘rules’, be they in a legal sense or in a moral sense. You try to skirt around the really important issues here, especially as these same issues may apply to the populaces of other countries in the future, including your own.

The fact that there is an absolute lack of due process and a complete absence of any independent judicial oversight at Guantanamo infringe the most basic principles of both International and US law.

Surely it must be evident in that the most glaringly obvious example of a failure to uphold international law relates to your admin's premeditated failure to provide individual review of the detainees' cases?

According to the Geneva Convention and established US military practice, every individual captured in battle is entitled to a hearing by a 'competent tribunal' if there is any doubt whatsoever as to whether or not he should be detained.

They should also have the rights of a prisoner of war, you yourselves call them enemy combatants, so they are in effect prisoners of war are they not?

Not one of these hearings has taken place at Guantanamo period.

These hearings are incredibly important due to the circumstances under which many detainees were transferred to Guantanamo. A lot of these men were handed over to US forces by Northern Alliance warlords or others, in exchange for cash for goodness sakes; this in its self makes detaining them under your definitions worse than shaky, actually it is intolerable.

Using International laws and also Individual reviews of the facts surrounding the men's detention would help ensure that none of those held are simply people who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and judging by the number that have been released without charge (300 or so) it appears that is the case in a lot of instances.

As for American law, US officials blatantly and deliberately wanted to circumvent that issue by insisting that US law does not even apply at Guantanamo, which smacks of a deviousness that takes my breath away.

This absolutely stinks to high heaven of course as they were well aware that the camp is the legal equivalent of no mans land and they blasted well chose to place enemy combatants there to ensure that all gloves could be taken off. if you like.

The underhanded, devious ideology here is that the military base, though under the control of the US military is technically leased from Cuba and so your admin keep insisting the US Constitution does not apply.

What really makes me feel really sick is, that many ordinary American people think this was a great move, never really thinking about what this actually means, it means that you as a country have lowered yourselves to the same level as those you claim to be monsters.

And before you start off with the excuse these men chop off heads, we do not. etc.etc, we all know they do, we are not protecting or dismissing their actions, we are trying to protect their rights as human beings, the worst thing here is, that the US should and do know better, these other monsters do not.
Cutting off the heads of their enemies is a natural (to them) and an honourable thing to do, what the US admin is doing is controlled, deliberate and wholly and completely wrong, as they are supposed to be civilised and democratic, to advocate freedom and justice.

The concept that there could be a place where no law reaches, runs against the basic ideology of human rights and the law itself, fundamental principles which should apply to absolutely anyone, anywhere in this world of ours.

The fact that the USA which we all used to believe was a great country built, based and run on tremendously high fundamental principles, should with devious intent utterly betray these principles and values is beyond contempt and very, very sad.

This is NOT [b]America bashing, it is nothing but genuine, heartfelt criticism and concern, another concern is, that you and others like you, fail to see the long term implications of such a camp.

Nina I have to ask how you feel that imprisoning an enemy combatant is the same level as chopping off a head. On what planet is it natural to cut off the head of an enemy? I mean if this is about human rights - what human thinks cutting off heads is acceptable? Maybe you've phrased this awkwardly and I'd like for you explain this to me. You appear to be rationalizing head removal. I am guessing you don't mean to be.

The concept of the Outlaw is one that the US employed not too long ago. An Outlaw was a person who was "outside the law" no law protected them. Basically you could do anything to an Outlaw and it was OK. I don't think that Guantanamo is quite a place free of laws.

Once again you as an educated american are excusing the behaviour of your admin now with a reference to laws that applied in a distant time and if I may say so a different world.

It appears that you will resort to any means to justify behaviour that in any other country and by any other admin you would vehemnantly oppose, just because it is being actioned by your own.

As for my statement regarding the cutting off of heads I was merely pointing out that these people do not live by the same rules as we, if you understood a little of middle eastern culture you would understand that to them cutting off an enemies head is little different to an american soldier shooting or bombing an enemy.

Again you use this marked and shocking difference to justify your own actions within the war on terrorism as somehow better than theirs, I was simply trying to point out, that you should know better because you are educated, civilised people and live by a set of different moral rules that should prevent any action or method that goes beneath what is morally and lawfully acceptable in our culture, to do so makes us monsters too, no excuses.

Nina you are mistaken on a few points. I am specifically making the point that Guantanamo IS NOT outside the law. As for Middle Eastern culture I assure you that head chopping is quite unacceptable in 2007. Maybe in 7 this was not a no-no. What is it about imprisoning enemy combatants that makes the US monsters?

My whole point is, it is unacceptable to us, not them, we are good friends are we not with Saudi Arabia? A country that you accept uses the chopping off of limbs as mandatory in the case of specific crimes. Again I say to you, these people see the US as their enemy for whatever their reasoning, even if warped, they resort to their method of punishment for those they feel have committed a crime, set by their moral standards and their culture.

Has the US halted all business transactions and ceased diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia due to this practice? No they have not and nor will they do so, is there any difference in their actions and those ‘enemy combatants’ who use the same method of punishment? I think not, this is blatant hypocrisy on the part of the US to begin with.

The term ‘enemy combatants’ is little more than a label, a convenient point of reference if you will. The term replaces the more conventional POW, as it has a greater emotional impact. The point being that no one is going to care for the fate of an active enemy combatant. This of course is a blatant manipulation.

If we are to win hearts and minds to our cause for civilisation, we must firstly be able to demonstrate that civilisation works. We hear a lot of bad stories about Guantanamo, and I doubt we have heard half of it, otherwise why the secrecy of the place, why the refusal to provide an individual review?

Military circles have the ability to classify such information and it would certainly be in their interests to do so, but that aside (as it is not wholly demonstrable), we can not demonstrate that anyone in Guantanamo is guilty of anything, including chopping heads off.

In our civilised society, we are asked to provide at least some evidence before condemning or imprisoning people. Are we suggesting that accusation will do as long as the crime is bad enough, or we (rightly or wrongly) feel threatened?

This in itself, is an admission of failure on our part.

To sum up, we are showing the world that our system simply does not work, and that when it comes down to the brass-tacks, killing, torturing, imprisoning and denying any route of recourse to those who prove truly problematic to us, is the only workable system. Chop heads off or blow people to smithereens, it makes no odds. It all comes down to the same mind-set, i.e. destroy your problems or render them moot; otherwise they may force you in to an uncomfortable mental area.

This is the solution we are using and the solution in its self makes us no different than them.

Nina you're missing a vital point here. The people in Guantanamo are there because they were picked up on the battlefield. They are not POWs because they were not wearing uniforms or part of an Army. There are others in Guantanamo who were picked up in raids and freely admit we are who we say they are. OBLs driver for instance. We don't have to try them - we're keeping them off the battlefield.

This is off topic but I wanted to make these points to you.

Yes they are off-topic and highly irrelevant to the point I am trying to make regarding the war/hearts and minds we are trying to win.

Your points can also be rebutted in that the Geneva Convention states prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

These people have been rounded up in conflict, on the battlefield as you yourself just stated, how many were military? .. how many were civilians? .. how many fall in to sub-section 6. ?? .. place your bets my friend, we do not know due to the secrecy of this administration and their refusal to allow those held due process.

Putting all that aside for a second. The only way we can win this 'war' is by convincing our opposers and the ordinary citizens of middle eastern countries that our civilised way is best .. Guantanamo is a tremendous if not profound argument for brutality... so we have lost already.

If you are about to refer to the fact that the US did not sign the convention in 1977, please do not insult me, the very fact that the US chose not to is indicative of a country that is only civilised on their own terms, if and when it suits them, making us no different that the uncivilised peoples we are trying to civilise now.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

From a post I made in another thread--applies to this matter as well:


"Our Const protects the rights of US citizens. What happens to citizens of other nations is of no great concern.

Indeed, the reason we enter into treaties like the Geneva Conv is to protect our citizens when they come under the custody of others, quid pro quo. Since we know Muslim extremists could care less about such niceities, whether they are German nationals or otherwise, I say we give them "rights" when it suits us to do so. I would support opting out of many of the treaties we have signed that purport to reduce our sovereignty. As a US president, I would never permit one of our soldiers or officials to be tried by another nation's courts on a matter such as this.

That said, the rights granted to US citizens in the Const and in the law of the US must be followed to the letter if citizenship is to mean anything. I am a very staunch believer in the necessity of this, even if the practice permits some criminals to go free or some criminal acts to occur before they can be stopped--even serious ones."


I absolutely do not believe in World Government or Human Rights, as those terms are bandied about today. The US is a sovereign nation, answerable to no one but God. All other nations are as well. Each nation is free to exercise that sovereignty until another nation prohibits it from doing so. The US has entered into a number of treatries that serve to restrict that sovereignty, and as such, are Unconstitutional. The Const cannot be amended but by the Amendment process contained in the document. I would argue the UN Charter, as written, is an Unconst treaty, as the US cannot surrender its sovereignty to a world body absent the full sequence of approvals required in the Const itself for amendment.

So, the US owes no one anything in regard to our handling of foreign nationals whom we suspect intend to commit, or have committed, terroristic acts against the US.

Then you must surely realise you will never achieve what you are hoping to achieve and all the deaths of both civilians and soldiers will be rendered sensless/useless in the long term.

What is it you think I (meaning the US, I presume) am hoping to achieve? I guess I do not understaned the last few lines of your post. Perhaps you care to elaborate?

Rounded up in conflict??. How about part of the Taliban army and admitted to being such. You can stretch that any way you like and it come out the same? WHO claimed to be “just picked up arms”? This is ridiculous and as you know that country and army never signed, or abided by in any way the GC and are not even entitled to any of its provisions. I have no clue what you mean by “due process” – want to tell us? And tell us by what aurthority/treaty they get this due process please.


As far as
win the war” by showing our opposers that our civilized way is best – well IMO the majority believe that now but the “enemy” does not and will not any time soon. Unless of course you plan to become Muslim and renounce any support for the state of Israel – both of which seem to be non negotiable demands. The latter by the way shared by many moderate people in the ME.

We did this in the 80s and 90s. Did our best to solve the Palestinian conflict and failed and saved a country (Kuwait) from being taken by Saddam. We supported allies like Egypt, Turkey etc and at the end of the day we were attacked all through the 90s up through 9/11. Explain to me what we did to deserve that please??


GITO is one of the best run prisons in the world.

You tell me my friend.

It is not the muslim extremists that hold the key to bringing peace and stability, it is the ordinary muslim people of middle eastern countries, until you can show the ordinary people that the 'democracy' we practice and are seen to practice is 'right and just' you cannot ever hope to render extremists and their warped values redundant.

Yo