Just to make things clear. The United States now has a policy, referred to euphemistically as simply “rendition,” of flying terror suspects to foreign countries to torture them.
Even though it doesn’t work.
Many of the countries in which the torture is carried out are in Eastern Europe. Indeed, we have adopted a great deal of the old apparatus of Soviet imperialism.
It is often the case that the people being tortured are completely innocent.
“They picked up the wrong people, who had no information. In many, many cases there was only some vague association” with terrorism, one CIA officer said.”
There was a time, not too long ago, when we thought we had evolved beyond such behavior. Apparently not.
Outrageous…I am still waiting for so-called moderate Republicans to stage any kind of protest, one wonders if they all want to be associated with these sort of things.
Come on guys, what you write is such a complete nonsense.
First of all, it is highly uncertain whether any of these particular secret prisons exist. All official data both from the US as well as Eastern Europe indicate that they do not exist. But of course, if they do, I won’t be surprised.
Second, it is definitely not “often” that the people who are dealt with in this (generalized) fashion are innocent. Errors always occur but most of these people are upgefucked terrorists and killers that deserve the worst treatment one can imagine. Moreover, this treatment is often necessary to get the information about their fellow thugs and other important data. I certainly think that it is worth to give a hard time to a seemingly innocent graduate of whatever school when 50 other terrorists are effectively neutralized and identified.
As a citizen of a country that is a member of NATO, I expect at least someone in NATO to do their job correctly. It is unfortunately hard to expect this thing from most of the countries in Europe and elsewhere because their reasoning – and quality of their work – often resembles your pathetic comments.
The U.S. is probably the only civilized country today that is ready to invest money and other things into the safety of the Western civilization, and I admire this country and its government for their precious job. Moshe (and Sean, of course), what you are saying is really painful. What you’re writing essentially implies that you are fighting this war on terror with the opposite side than I am. If you were honest, you would first of all thank everyone for treating you so nicely with all the hyperstandard human rights and so forth. If this was were real, you may very well follow your fellow co-warriors.
If this was -> If this war
Lubos, I don’t want to be drawn to a long debate over this, there are more interesting things to do. Let me emphasize though that the question is not whether or not one supports terror, but whether this way of fighting it is 1. effective and 2. cost effective (and I am not talking about money here). My personal answer is 1. maybe, probably not and 2. definitely not. Let us save our energy to physics.
I’m sorry if this sounds nasty, but I think immigrants with no concept of human rights who come in not as refugees or entry-level workers, but are part of the so-called “elite” pose a threat to the traditions of this country, just as much as some of the currently powerful do.
Dear Moshe, indeed, I would also recommend us and you in particular to save your energy for other things and avoid comments about questions that you have no idea about – such as war strategy.
Dear X, I’ve already learned pretty well that anonymous people like you are virtually never Americans. Aren’t you the 30-kilogram Chinese student from University of Delaware who has sent me 150 threats to kill me and who has also proposed that all immigrants should be removed from the U.S.? If you are, this may gonna be your last posting outside the jail.
No threats or name-calling, please. Subsequent inappropriate comments will be deleted without notice.
Hey, oh Great Motl of Infinite Wisdom, assuming for the sake of argument that torture is an effective means of information extraction (highly debatable, but I did say “assuming”) don’t you think that it would be
1) more honest (a quality which your post implies that you value) to have a clearly stated policy which says so and regulates the use of torture, on US territory itself, instead of playing these international hide-and-seek games; and
2) more cost-effective, too (no need to maintain foreign bases just for the sake of having an extra-jurisdicial limbo where anything goes, no flying suspects back and forth, no dealing and wheeling with foreign “intelligence” officers doing the dirty work); and
3) more effective, since an officially stated and regulated policy would remove the element of amateurism and arbitrariness which has repeatedly been shining through in reports on this matter? You know, things like beating somebody senseless and then leaving him chained outdoors, in Afghan winter, only to find he froze to death when you decide to check on him a few hours later. I have little doubt that such exemplary work may give those doing it the odd sadistic kick to get them through an otherwise dreary day, but as far as information retrieval is concerned, it doesn’t exactly strike me as the most brilliant of tactics. Perhaps you’ve heard, dead men tend to be not very talkative.
I mean, come on, if you want to be the Empire and play Darth Vader, who is a humble Dissident to say otherwise? But at least do it properly!
Lubos:
This simply doesn’t work in democratic countries. In a police state like, say, Stalin’s Russia or in Iraq under Saddam this did work. Also, in many cases the persons are innocent. One of the reasons why the US is doing this is because they don’t have sufficient evidence that would warrant further investigation within the rules of the law.
Even in ”normal” criminal cases, many of the persons being suspected are not prosecuted. Some fraction of prosecuted people are acquitted. Some fraction of convicted people have their sentences overturned on appeal. And then there are people who are innocent but still in jail.
The security in the US depends on support for terrorist action. Because almost no Americans support terrorism, the US is safe. But if large numbers of foreigners are mistreated as a result of US actions, then someone someday may want to take revenge.
this is about three things:
a government, that of the United States, which believes it has Divine Destiny on its side and perceives it has “won” the Cold War, making itself the dominant empire in the same way Rome was over Carthage. this means it is imperial. this means it thinks, whether in the words of the Abu Ghraib VP Cheney or in the guise of Condi Rice, everyone must suck up to it. this is justified by phrases like “We spent the Soviet Union into the ground”, failing to realize that the only reason extravagant expenditures for defense were possible was because of the subsidy provided by overseas institutions and people buying USA government debt.
a government, that of the United States, which believes that the fear and anger resulting from the attacks of 11th September, as communicated to it by its citizens, is sufficient cause to suspend liberties and take “extraordinary measures” such as Abu Ghraib and probable secret prisons in Europe are examples. doing so, of course, sets aside the pride of democratic countries, the courts and jury trials, as means of determinining truth. doing so, of course, is entirely coincident with techniques used by kings of England, czars of Russia, and advisors of Austria, as well as Saddam Hussein himself, a privilege of convenience this government embraces because, well, it can. this fails to realize that the impression this gives is simply an extension of American jingoism, in particular, prejudice as an offensive Pat Robertson-style Christian bastion which deplores any non-Christian culture or religion, especially Islam.
a government, that of the United States, which is run by cowards, both Republican and Democratic. for, if they really believed their own bluster and propaganda, would deploy and use nuclear devices to contain what they perceive to be genuine threats to the security of the United States, or so they say. they don’t, so these folks haven’t any balls. nor do they believe their own press.
In response to LM:
“Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.”
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
—
Terror is a strategy.
If we win this “war on terror” by using their techniques and strategies we have lost it by definition. If you deny our right to scrutinize the way we fight this war in open public debate you are denying our most potent weapon against oppression and the dangers that we face from within.
In more concrete terms, the strategies of the US are failing, terrorism is on the rise globally, al Quaeda has more members then ever. The Iraq war was a costly diversion of ressources that has created a vast amount of potential recruits for terrorists.
Even more specifically, the CIA in particular appears to be way out of hand (not a first historically) with an administration that shows no signs of ensuring proper procedure within, and possibly even presuring in ideological directions.
These countries you are charging with doing nothing against terrorists are in fact those who have had experience with their own terrorism in the past, and have succesfully faught it (RAF, IRA, ETA). Yet the US administration is refusing to learn from this lessons.
You are a scientist. Please adjust your thinking to the actual evidence that is there.
Hey Lubos, tell that to Maher Arar.
I think it possibly useful to point out that there is real evidence to believe that most Americans really don’t care that torture happens. Torture is portrayed positively on television: Alias, E-Ring, and Navy: NCIS. It’s not like there’s a Mother’s against Torture on TV organization out there bemoaning primetime TV. A reasonable conclusion…Americans are OK with torture.
I’ll avoid a long diatribe here…see my blog (post of 11/21) for more details.
Someone wrote: “Even in ”normal” criminal cases, many of the persons being suspected are not prosecuted.”
These are not normal criminal cases. These are urgent and very special cases that potentially threaten thousands of lives and they’re examples of the criminals for whom the Patriot Act was designed.
What you seem to say is that these terrorist suspects should have more extensive human rights than regular criminal suspects. This is unacceptable and incompatible with the current law, as of September 2001 – December 2005. Of course that they have lower rights and the authorities have extended rights and tools to deal with them.
Just some information for this discussion:
The UN convention against torture is part of international law.
The US has signed this convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture
The idea of international human rights was adopted in the 1940s after
the horrors of WW2.
FP, thanks, it is useful information but one should also read it.
The text makes it clear that it is the countries on whose territories the torture takes place who are responsible according to this convention. Moreover, it is pretty difficult to find a particular article that has been violated.
When you say that the U.S. have signed this convention, you are being sloppy:
The United States ratified the Convention, but with one reservation: that “… nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.” [1], footnote #11).
Lubos:
I agree but the the important word here is ”potentially”. The US is currently holding peole like Sheik Khalid Mohammed who planned 9/11 but also people like Mr. Begg, who was held in Guantanamo but later released. Mr. Begg was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. It took a lot of pressure from Blair to get him released.
What is happening is that if someone is suspected he is hold captive because he could be a dangerous terrorist. Perhaps there is some indirect evidence that is consistent with that but he could also be innocent.
If we want keep these people captive then we become like Saddam and Stalin. Because what was the real reason why he killed 5000 Kurds? It wasn’t because he wanted to kill all Kurds, as we sometimes hear, but because some Kurds had collaborated with the Iranians. And Stalin didn’t want to take unnecessary risks either.
I think that we have to relativate the possibility of ”thousands of deaths”. It is one thing to have good intelligence about such a possibility. But to use that as a reason to keep people captive in Guantanamo bay, just because they were fighting for the Talaban is nonsense. I mean, why would you fight in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) if you want to kill innocent people?
“violence is the last resort of the incompetent”
I. Asimov
In response to LM-
” Second, it is definitely not “often” that the people who are dealt with in this (generalized) fashion are innocent. Errors always occur but most of these people are upgefucked terrorists and killers that deserve the worst treatment one can imagine.”
Even in normal situations within one’s country, where the police have enough time and freedom to investigate a case, it is many a time not clear whether those who are caught are actually the culprits. And in these cases of terrorism etc, where they summarily catch hundreds of people as suspects, how can you be so sure that most of them are not innocent?! Asking for openness seems quite reasonable by any standards. Or is it that your implicit faith in the present government is so strong that you find it sacrilegious to question anything it does?
fh: One of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite thinkers. So the trick is to avoid becoming a monster if engaged in fighting monsters.
Consider Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis model; if the U.S. (at least nominally a democracy) is constantly fighting monsters then it must eventually evolve into a monster. Even crediting the People with constant vigilance, intelligence, and goodwill, America will move ever closer to monsterhood even if it does so in subliminally tiny steps. Because America perceives itself as the good guy, it will always be fighting the bad guys and so must inevitably become, contrary to its self-perceptions, a bad guy.
In any case, you can’t play by the rules and beat an opponent who doesn’t; sooner or later you throw away the rulebook – even if this means some bystanders might get hurt.
1) Secret detention facilities do exist, though its not clear if they do in Europe or not. This has been known for a long time.
2) Charges of torture require evidence, and I remain unconvinced it exists outside of isolated incidents, often based solely on anecdotal evidence. The problem is we likely won’t ever know. But this doesn’t bother me, the public doesn’t have to *know* every detail do they? Sometimes you just have to trust the payed, American proffessionals working for governments we elect, much as the conspiracy nutters hate the idea.
3) ‘Torture’ is often defined differently by different people so it tends to be hard to figure out exactly what people are talking about.
4) The CIA is by law expected to uphold the Geneva conventions, even in situations where most people would support the use of the practise (ticking time bomb scenarios)
Somewhat related, via the NY review of books:
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/
LM wrote:
Lubos, please explain how this footnote has any relevance to the present discussion? This isn’t a get-out clause for the US – it doesn’t constitute ‘having our fingers crossed’ while ratifying the Convention. Read the footnote again. It says, to paraphrase, “if the Convention tries to force the US to pass legislation or take action, but that legislation or action is prohibited by the Constitution, then in such a conflict the Constitution wins and the Convention loses.”
How does that apply to the Convention’s prohibition of torture? What part of “don’t torture prisoners” violates the US Constitution?
And by the way:
Says the guy who writes a 5 paragraph comment on the subject here, and then another 9 on his own site!
Please let us note that indefinite detention of one declared an enemy combatant by the President, e.g., as in Guantanamo, with regular visits by the Red Cross, etc., is rather different from indefinite detention in secret prisons.
Second, it may not be necessary or possible to tell the public certain things. Nevertheless, the principle of our government and democracy is that the three branches exercise oversight or act as checks on each other. The Adminstration needs to be accountable at least to, say, a select subcommittee in Congress.