| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/la-fg-masri12apr12,0,408425.story?coll=sfla-newsnation-front Sorry, the link has commas. Cut and paste. Ok, so assuming you read this Tom Clancy-esq story. Do you believe it? If so? Is it justified if indeed American agents perpetuated this? What have we gotten ourselves into? |
So yes, alas, I can believe it. But I don't think it's justified. I think there's a long history of abusive interrogation and fear tactics playing into this, and it's not a matter of what we're getting into, but, rather, what we are perpetuating. |
|
The process, approved by Reagan, you speak of, Extraordinary Rendition, is a practice that was recently brought into light in which detainees are taken to other countries by prior arrangement and interrogated there. Critic of the war on terror and author of Why The West Is Losing The War on Terror, Michael Sheuer, 22 year Veteran of the CIA cites that the policy is misunderstood. And says the policy was designed to remove a threat off the streets ASAP and sieze documents and of course incarcerate immediately. He says the CIA never picked up anyone that wasnt wanted by the host country. He says the CIA, as a service organization has been left hanging by the Dept of Justice and the Congress, because often the agency is left with these individuals and they are denied access to facilities on US soil. He cites the "cowardace of Congress and Executive branch" when this policy was drafted. He says the interrogation of this policy is not the most important part of it. He was adament that when this policy was utilized, at least under the Clinton administration, the anti-torture aspect is strictly adhered to. Do I believe that, yes and no. Like the soldiers in Abu Ghraib who tortured inmates, its a breakdown of system and no one agency is soley responsible. I recommend you listen to Warren's Olney's show on this two weeks ago. http://www.kcrw.org/cgi-bin/db/kcrw.pl?show_code=tp&air_date=3/28/05&tmplt_type=show Go to the 12 minute mark or so to hear Michael Sheuer's interview on it. |
I don't know if we are more accepting because of our fears, though. I believe that most people don't realize the extent of the policy, because there is a sort of willful ignorance about these things in this country. It's also not as though the government is displaying this for our approval--it's coming out in bits and pieces, in such a way that I think perhaps the government would prefer that we not know, because they are aware that it's not justifiable. I mean, if the issue is getting a "threat" in custody, the United States has prisons, and the ability to get warrants, etc, to confiscate the individual's property and documents. I fail to see how exporting someone to be tortured would really make sense here, if containment is your goal. Expanding the chain of custody does not lead to security. |
I think what he means is that, often the executive branch will exploit the CIA for political purposes but doesnt really want to deal with the baggage that comes with it like detainees or oh...i dunno, fallout like uh, dead civilians from guerilla death squads the CIA was asked to train *coughJohnNegropontehackcough*. If they come to US soil, there's potential for that dirty laundry to air, more so than if they are held in a cell abroad. its the beaurocrats having their cake and eating it to. Sheuer does ask, in the interview i linked above, 'are we safer because of this policy?' and thats a serious consideration. but at what price? i havent seen tons and tons of evidence that innocent people are being systematcially abused. in fact, i question i hear about this and related subjects because of the clandestine nature of it all. |