Condi's European Roadtrip
Bush administration philosophy: When you don't like the rules of the game...change the rules.
Secretary of (Police) State Condi Rice has been trying to calm our neighbors in Europe over their objections to some of the practices the US has been doing lately. Namely the alleged “rendering” of terrorism suspects to countries known to use torture and the alleged “secret prison system” run by the CIA.
Rice had this to say: "The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice, which were designed for different needs. We have to adapt."
The Bush administration has claimed that everything they do in the war on terror is done within the law. But at the same time they say the laws don't apply to this conflict or those fighting it. This has always been their out. They proclaim they are abiding by non-applicable laws.
What they are really trying to do is sell the Europeans on their "new system". One that includes “rendition” and “secret interrogation facilities”. And one were innocent people may be swept up, as may have been the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese decent who was sent to Afghanistan, held for five months (during which time he alleges he was beaten and drugged) and finally released (actually dumped in the woods in Albania). Apparently it was a case of mistaken identity. The German government is taking el-Masri’s claims very seriously.
Throughout her travels in Europe, Rice contends that the US does not condone torture. But at the same time she proclaims that “gathering intelligence” is the “key” to winning “the war on terror”. She specifically says that some detainees may possess information that may save lives, perhaps thousands of lives. This is another example of the Bush administration trying to have both ways, condemning torture while at the same time implying that it may be necessary in order to protect us from terrorism.
What Rice, and many in the Bush administration, fail to ever point out is that torture can lead to faulty intelligence. It’s been reported that the detainee that the Bush administration relied upon for its pre-war assertions of a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq did in fact lie about those connections in order to avoid harsh treatment at the hands of the Egyptians (he was turned over to them in Jan. 2002). It would seem the practice of “rendition” didn’t work out so well in this case.
Another way in which the administration continues to obfuscate the issue of torture is that they have never clearly defined what is and is not torture. And of course when they do define it (see Gonzales memo) they define it in such narrow terms as to leave open a wide range of things that are just-short-of-torture. Why else would Bush threaten to veto a bill that would ban the cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of prisoners held by the US? Or why Cheney would lobby the Congress for exempting the CIA from the ban?
Because they know that some of their sanctioned “enhanced interrogation techniques” would probably fall within the categories of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. So when the Bush administration says they do not condone torture, realize they are going by a different definition then the rest of us.
Rice goes on to say this: "Some governments choose to cooperate with the United States in intelligence, law enforcement, or military matters. That cooperation is a two-way street. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives. It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries, and decide how much sensitive information they can make public. They have a sovereign right to make that choice."
This amounts to a thinly veiled threat. The Bush administration hopes to bully those governments into accepting this new system, and keeping the details of it quite, else the US turn a blind eye when terrorism strikes their respective countries.
Luckily the Europeans aren't buying it. That is the price you pay when trying to speak of taking the moral high ground when your credibility doesn’t have the luster it once had.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Secretary of (Police) State Condi Rice has been trying to calm our neighbors in Europe over their objections to some of the practices the US has been doing lately. Namely the alleged “rendering” of terrorism suspects to countries known to use torture and the alleged “secret prison system” run by the CIA.
Rice had this to say: "The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice, which were designed for different needs. We have to adapt."
The Bush administration has claimed that everything they do in the war on terror is done within the law. But at the same time they say the laws don't apply to this conflict or those fighting it. This has always been their out. They proclaim they are abiding by non-applicable laws.
What they are really trying to do is sell the Europeans on their "new system". One that includes “rendition” and “secret interrogation facilities”. And one were innocent people may be swept up, as may have been the case of Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese decent who was sent to Afghanistan, held for five months (during which time he alleges he was beaten and drugged) and finally released (actually dumped in the woods in Albania). Apparently it was a case of mistaken identity. The German government is taking el-Masri’s claims very seriously.
Throughout her travels in Europe, Rice contends that the US does not condone torture. But at the same time she proclaims that “gathering intelligence” is the “key” to winning “the war on terror”. She specifically says that some detainees may possess information that may save lives, perhaps thousands of lives. This is another example of the Bush administration trying to have both ways, condemning torture while at the same time implying that it may be necessary in order to protect us from terrorism.
What Rice, and many in the Bush administration, fail to ever point out is that torture can lead to faulty intelligence. It’s been reported that the detainee that the Bush administration relied upon for its pre-war assertions of a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq did in fact lie about those connections in order to avoid harsh treatment at the hands of the Egyptians (he was turned over to them in Jan. 2002). It would seem the practice of “rendition” didn’t work out so well in this case.
Another way in which the administration continues to obfuscate the issue of torture is that they have never clearly defined what is and is not torture. And of course when they do define it (see Gonzales memo) they define it in such narrow terms as to leave open a wide range of things that are just-short-of-torture. Why else would Bush threaten to veto a bill that would ban the cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of prisoners held by the US? Or why Cheney would lobby the Congress for exempting the CIA from the ban?
Because they know that some of their sanctioned “enhanced interrogation techniques” would probably fall within the categories of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. So when the Bush administration says they do not condone torture, realize they are going by a different definition then the rest of us.
Rice goes on to say this: "Some governments choose to cooperate with the United States in intelligence, law enforcement, or military matters. That cooperation is a two-way street. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives. It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries, and decide how much sensitive information they can make public. They have a sovereign right to make that choice."
This amounts to a thinly veiled threat. The Bush administration hopes to bully those governments into accepting this new system, and keeping the details of it quite, else the US turn a blind eye when terrorism strikes their respective countries.
Luckily the Europeans aren't buying it. That is the price you pay when trying to speak of taking the moral high ground when your credibility doesn’t have the luster it once had.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Post a Comment