America Generously Outsources Torture Abroad

NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE AND AFP , WASHINGTON
Tuesday, Mar 08, 2005,Page 1

"The Bush administration’s secret program transferring scores of suspected terrorists to foreign countries to be imprisoned and interrogated has been carried out by the CIA under broad authority to act without case-by-case approval from the White House or the State or Justice departments, according to current and former government officials.

The unusually expansive authority for the CIA to operate independently since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was provided by the White House under a still-classified directive signed by US President George W. Bush within days of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the officials said.

The process, known as rendition, has been central in the government’s efforts to disrupt terrorism, but has been bitterly criticized by human-rights groups on grounds that the practice has violated the Bush administration’s public pledge to provide safeguards against torture.

In providing a detailed description of the program, a senior US official said it had been aimed only at those suspected of having knowledge of terrorist operations, and emphasized that the CIA has gone to great lengths to ensure that they are detained under humane conditions and not subjected to torture.

Meanwhile, the CIA has been accused of secretly using a jet to ferry terror suspects for interrogation to countries known to use torture, according to a report aired late on Sunday.

CBS television’s 60 Minutes program videotaped the Boeing 737 on a runway at Glasgow Airport in Scotland, saying it was able to trace it through a series of companies and executives that apparently exist only on paper.

It said the plane had made at least 600 flights to 40 countries, all after the Sept. 11 attacks, including 30 trips to Jordan, 19 to Afghanistan, 17 to Morocco and 16 to Iraq.

The plane also went to Egypt, Libya and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to the report.

The aircraft is part of the CIA’s so-called “rendition” program, in which suspects are sent to foreign governments for interrogation.

The agency has not formally acknowledged the program’s existence.

A German national, which CBS identified as Khalid El-Masri, told a reporter he was on vacation in Macedonia when he was arrested by police and held in Macedonia for three weeks and then brought to the airport, beaten by masked men, drugged and put aboard the 737.

The plane left Skopje, Macedonia, and went to Baghdad and then Kabul, with El-Masri saying he awoke in a jail cell where his captors said, “You’re in a country without laws and no one knows where you are,” CBS News quoted the former detainee as saying."

I’m sure proud of my country. So generous, so democratic. No wonder everyone is lining up for their shot of democracy. Back here on earth, democracy is just a code word for: subjugated to US interests.

OK Fred, what’s your Ministry of Truth spin on this one?

I categorically deny the whole thing even happened. It is a media plot. Lies. Lies. All lies.

No seriously. Let me check into this first. Looks like we are going to have to return to the other previous thread where this has already been discussed to death. I have already stated that in this war, as with the situation in Abu Ghraib, that I do not categorically rule out the use of torture or the more commonly used abuse, the latter of which consists of such horrible things as food and sleep deprivation and being placed in uncomfortable positions. Torture a bit more difficult but properly managed need not be the end of American morality as we know it.

First a few questions to jumpstart my efforts.

  1. Is torture illegal in the sense that US forces cannot use it? Is there any law or memo or anything on this?

  2. We have the secret flights and camps. Very possible. Very sensible. Does anyone really know what kind of interrogation methods are going on at these places? Do we have documented proof of this yet? or is this speculation?

  3. Does this in any way prove that some of the soldiers at Abu Ghraib were in fact following orders or is this still an isolated incident? I would be more than happy to re-examine any new evidence showing a national policy to torture or abuse. I just seriously doubt that it would consist of sexual romper-room antics ala that England woman.

I guess what you are really asking is if I have a problem with torture and abuse. I guess I am going to have to say I would prefer not to answer and while I would like to say categorically that I am against it and that it is a travesty and an outrage against human rights, the other side of me would like to know how this is being done and how well it is being monitored and who is involved and factors like that might be likely to sway my view of what is being done to whom and when. Ugly? yes. Reality? Big Time. Easy to Answer? Absolutely not. An absolute moral gray zone that I would prefer not to be pressed on.

So, a better way to do this, as the more humane use of prolonged detention at Guantanamo Bay is too cruel for most human rights activists…let’s just line then up and ask them to be really REALLY honest when they answer this question:

“Are you or have you ever been a member or supporter of terrorirsm?”

“No?”

“Kay, you can go.”

That should work, huh? Why on Earth should the US give democractic rights and protections to those who haven’t earned them by following the basic tenets of Democracy?

If terrorists don’t like being tortured for performing and supporting terrorist actions as much as human rights group don’t, uhm, they can stop blowing people up then. Other than that, my well of sympathy is purt near dry for them.

[quote=“jdsmith”]

Why on Earth should the US give democractic rights and protections to those who haven’t earned them by following the basic tenets of Democracy?

If terrorists don’t like being tortured for performing and supporting terrorist actions as much as human rights group don’t, uhm, they can stop blowing people up then. Other than that, my well of sympathy is purt near dry for them.[/quote]

So your sure they always get the right people. The CIA who missed 9/11 are so good that they never pull in an innocent. Fuck it, if you already know they are terrorists then you would be a bit of a dumb fuck to ask them:

“Are you or have you ever been a member or supporter of terrorirsm?”

You already know the answer you plonker.

Can we have a dumb post of the day award for this?

[quote=“butcher boy”][quote=“jdsmith”]

Why on Earth should the US give democractic rights and protections to those who haven’t earned them by following the basic tenets of Democracy?

If terrorists don’t like being tortured for performing and supporting terrorist actions as much as human rights group don’t, uhm, they can stop blowing people up then. Other than that, my well of sympathy is purt near dry for them.[/quote]

So your sure they always get the right people. The CIA who missed 9/11 are so good that they never pull in an innocent. Fuck it, if you already know they are terrorists then you would be a bit of a dumb fuck to ask them:

“Are you or have you ever been a member or supporter of terrorirsm?”

You already know the answer you plonker.

Can we have a dumb post of the day award for this?[/quote]

sure thing bub, put it right next to the “Incapable of reading sarcasm” award.

[color=green]Topic-related follow-up from another thread[/color]

It’s all wrong. The consensus on torture, from what I’ve read, is that information gained by torture is virtually never of any use, and merely serves to undermine any moral authority the torturers may have had or pretend to have. And being detained three years without trial? Normally I would find that to be an outrage, but I would make an exception for France.

That was sarcasm.[/quote]

PP,

I have read this as well – that torture does not yield useful information for the interrogator. I understand the argument that people under torture eventually confess to anything and everything – telling their interrogators whatever they think the interrogators want to hear. So clearly there will be a great deal of false information to sift through. So then the question becomes: Is this false information is so indistinguishable from the real information that we can say that “information gained by torture is virtually never of any use”?

The reason that I find this conclusion a little difficult to accept is that when we ask “Why, then, is the US sending people to be tortured?” there are really only two possibilities that occur to me:

[color=blue]b[/b] [/color]The CIA, military intelligence et. al. know less about the results that can be obtained by torture than you and I do (i.e. they haven’t read the articles we have saying it doesn’t work).

or

color=blue[/color] They are torturing people just because they are sick and twisted individuals who enjoy watching people suffer. If they they had read the articles that you and I read, and realized that torture didn’t produce useable intelligence, then they must be torturing people just for the sake of torturing people.

Although I can admit that in any large organization (such as the CIA or military intelligence) there may be certain individuals who have “snapped” or who were just wired wrong to begin with. But do you really believe that everyone involved (or the vast majority who are setting policy) are actually that sick and sadistic? I’m sure there are people who could quickly answer this question easily “Yes. The CIA tortures people even though it knows torture doesn’t work. They do it because they like watching their victims in pain (or reading reports about it after the fact.)”

I just think that most reasonable people would find both (1) and (2) to be highly unlikely, and would thus begin to have second thoughts about whether those “torture doesn’t work” articles might not be a little overstated. :idunno:

What do you think?

Not jumping into the merits of the issues but to respond to one of Fred’s questions . . .

The United States is bound by the UN Convention Against Torture as are a number of countries.

Article 3.1 of the Convention states:

No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Article 4.1 states:

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

Sections 2340 and 2340A of the Criminal Code were amended to criminalize torture occuring outside of the US per treaty obligations. I believe that torture within the US would be covered by other more general sections of the Criminal Code - that was the argument for not amending the further CC to comply with treaty obligations.

Military

The military is covered by the Geneva Conventions and all that which prohibit torture. General military and applicable civilian law should also cover it to prohibit it.

Very good points Hobbes.

First of all, I think there is a lot of moral posturing going on about this issue. When a terrorist has a nuclear device set to go off somewhere and you have an hour to stop him what are you going to do REALLY? If you were there, you were in the city and you knew that you and millions of others would die, you would go, well gee torture is against human rights conventions so guess we had not try that.

Also, with reputable governments like Western ones this could be done a lot more humanely and in a much more controlled manner than in countries like Iraq. Just by virtue of having a torture policy or system would not immediately equate us with Iraq or Iran. There are gradations and ironically it is those who are most against Bush for being so black and white who do not see that.

I think that such a policy or system would have to be very strictly monitored to prevent the kind of shit that happened at Abu Ghraib but we cannot rule it out of hand from some cheap moral stance that allows us to look good while refusing to take responsibility for thousands or millions of innocents that could be murdered just because it would make us feel “uncomfortable.” Let’s be realistic and very very careful.

Thanks for that information. While what we have seen at Abu Ghraib was for the most part abuse, I think that the time has come to seriously examine if we need to look at torture as well. Let’s have it well documented and well monitored but let’s look at it. Then, we can decide after weighing all the factors whether it is worth it, but let’s get a legal backing to this before we go ahead.

EXCUSE ME WHILE I GO VOMIT. What a sad world we live in.

Yes, let’s vomit. Here we have MT who has been rhapsodizing about the young and heroic Che Guevera who tortured hundreds perhaps thousands PERSONALLY while supervising the torture of thousands more while barfing at the mere suggestion we need to re-examine our torture policy?

Shall I go get the direct quotes from you MT where you rave about this brave and sensitive young man who felt things strongly?

I am against thugs like Che using torture, why aren’t you? Why were you not outraged by his actions against thousands of INNOCENT victims?

I am merely suggesting that we need to examine and get a sound monitoring process and legal basis for any torture that we may think about using which would be administered under the most special of circumstances.

But thank you for showing up to make my point about those who would rather engage in moral posturing while discounting the possibility of saving thousands, millions of innocent lives in very special circumstances.

In reality, though, I would probably be the one holding back from using torture while the “would be principled” MT types would be screaming for it in the very beginning if their lives or those of their loved ones were in any way threatened.

Bah!

[quote=“fred smith”]Yes, let’s vomit. Here we have MT who has been rhapsodizing about the young and heroic Che Guevera who tortured hundreds perhaps thousands PERSONALLY while supervising the torture of thousands more while barfing at the mere suggestion we need to re-examine our torture policy?

Shall I go get the direct quotes from you MT where you rave about this brave and sensitive young man who felt things strongly? Why don’t I just do that. So shall I assume then that any US torturers if brave, handsome, charismatic and such would also get the excuses for their behavior that you provide Che here. What was that you said about making someone sick. I can barely hold in my vomit right now:

MT wrote:

[quote]CAUTION: BLIND COMMIE-HATERS UNINTERESTED IN THE TRUTH: before responding to this post, understand that I

[quote=“fred smith”]
First of all, I think there is a lot of moral posturing going on about this issue. When a terrorist has a nuclear device set to go off somewhere and you have an hour to stop him what are you going to do REALLY? If you were there, you were in the city and you knew that you and millions of others would die, you would go, well gee torture is against human rights conventions so guess we had not try that.[/quote]

I’ve always had trouble with this example and it may be just because I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Are you trying to argue that if one accepts torture in this fairly unlikely situation then one cannot be against torture in less severe situations.

Most of the torture that is taking place in the world is not because of these types of situations is it?

I know I mentioned this in a post on the other thread dealing with torture but I will mention it again. The situation you set up is almost guaranteed to require that torture be allowed. What about a situation where you have 1000 people, 999 of them you know to be innocent and 1 of them is the terrorist but you don’t know who is who. Would it be okay to torture all of them? What if one was a friend or relative? What if you were not positive that there was a bomb but only suspected? I think these scenarios are much harder to deal with and to be honest I am not sure how I would deal with them. It’s definitely something to think about.

Link please. Provide me with credible evidence of Che personally torturing hundreds or thousands of people.

Why am I not against Che torturing thousands of innocent victims? Because I don’t believe it ever happened. I believe you are making up sensational falsehoods in order to attack me. As I’ve stated, I acknowledge that Che was responsible for the deaths mostly of soldiers that he fought against in trying to overthrow various corrupt, oppressive and imperialistic regimes and of traitors and snitches who threatened such rebellions, but he was not a terrorist and he didn’t enjoy violence – he felt it was necessary to overthrow wrongful governments.

I stand by my statements about him: he was intelligent, hardworking, honest, a man of integrity and great accomplishments (consider the fact that he was an argentine physician, but was the #2 or #3 soldier responsible for overthrowing a bad government in Cuba, following which he was one of the leading members of the new government and was responsible for overseeing their economy – impressive feats), but as I’ve acknowledged already, I also believe he was naive and misled. He sincerely believed he was fighting for good, trying to help better society, but he was sometimes fooled by foreign leaders who were less honorable than him and some of his economic and political beliefs were not sound. But in any event, I don’t believe he was a torturer and if he did torture someone I don’t approve of that. I never said I approved of all deeds that he did; I only said that he had many admirable qualities, which is true.

But I should not have spent so much time responding to your offtopic diversion. Contrary to yourself, I do believe that it is always wrong to torture people. There is no such thing as humane torture. And, back to the topic at hand, it’s especially wrong for the world’s strongest nation to kidnap people and fly them around the world to torture them as alleged in the OP.

[quote=“jdsmith”]
sure thing bub, put it right next to the “Incapable of reading sarcasm” award.[/quote]

:notworthy: mea culpa :blush: :beer:

[Personal attack deleted by Moderator]

Your Taliban-like idol has a lot A LOT of blood on his hands. Read on and on and on…

[quote]CLI-CH

Sorry I forgot to add this particular paragraph which I found summed it up in a most enjoyably humorous way. Also from the Observer article in the previous post.

More on MT’s pal or should I say buddy “Che” Excerpts read the rest for more.

[quote]For the first year of Castro’s glorious revolution Che Guevara was his main executioner

[quote=“fred smith”]Very good points Hobbes.

First of all, I think there is a lot of moral posturing going on about this issue. When a terrorist has a nuclear device set to go off somewhere and you have an hour to stop him what are you going to do REALLY? If you were there, you were in the city and you knew that you and millions of others would die, you would go, well gee torture is against human rights conventions so guess we had not try that.

Also, with reputable governments like Western ones this could be done a lot more humanely and in a much more controlled manner than in countries like Iraq. Just by virtue of having a torture policy or system would not immediately equate us with Iraq or Iran. [/quote]

A couple of points.

  1. Isn’t ‘humane torture’ an oxymoron?

  2. Your hypothetical is a bit far fetched don’t you think. and even if itis valid, does it mean we should allow toruture in any other cases. Have these cases of ‘rendition’ been performed with such a scenario in mind? If they have the time to fly them somewhere and wait for another regime to batter some confession out of someone then they seem not to be doing this because of the urgency of the situation.

  3. Lets take your hypothetical and make the reality of what you, and any others who are advocating that a bit of torture in extreme circumstances might be ok, a bit more clear. Say that even if you torture this terrorist, you know he won’t break in time. However he has a 5 year old daughter, and you know that if you rape and soddomize his little girl, he is going to break very fast. Will you do it? If you answer ‘no’ then I fear your argument above falls flat. Or at least you would need some way to explain how the moral calculus of millions dying vs torture, and millions dying vs 1 act of child abuse is so different that you believe the millions should die.

  4. I think Hobbes dichotomy misses out something. Namely there is the argument about what fred might term ‘feeling’. Good people can and do do bad things when they feel they have been badly wronged, or are under pressure. The need for revenge, the quest to make up for past errors can all make people desparate. The feeling of impotence, past present and future can, I believe, drive people to accept what they would normally not do. Most people would agrue that letting a victims family rip the murderer limb from limb is not good for society. However, make them the victim’s family and the objectivity often goes out the window. That’s why we have laws and government.

  5. I think torture is probably very ineffective at finding out worthwhile info. So why do so many autocratic states seem to rely on it so much? Is this why they stay in power so long and if so doesn’t that prove that torture works? Well it shows it works in one way, but I doubt it works to get info. Instead in works by instilling fear into the general population not to rock the boat, not to asociate with those who rock the boat etc. Now is this what any cia torture of terrorists would be aiming to achieve? That would make no sense at all. As for torture preventing terrorist attacks - check out saudi Arabia. They are not afraid of a little bit of beating here and a lot more there. Do they still have terrorist attacks? Fuck, aye.

Conclusion to waffle: Torture, whenever, is unacceptable. Say maybe and you open a whole can of worms that you cannot control and for little if any benifit.

Fred, may I politely point out the following and seek your cooperation on this?

Since you have provided a link (as it should be) it is not necessary to quote lengthy excerpts or entire articles.

Thanks,
Rascal
Moderator IP Forum