Quote:
Originally Posted by
Universal Mind
If he did it "simply because" they are notorious for rape? Then there would be a difference in intent from what I was talking about. That would show that the point is to have them raped. But sending them somewhere where he merely knows rape is a possibility does not mean the judge has a policy of rape.
Ha. Ok, we can build from that.
Of all the allies that we have, we send them to places that are notorious for violating human rights. (Which you cannot argue, even with a skewed, presumptuous statistic, is the case for all possible places where we can ship potential terrorists to be interrogated.) This the same as saying "No. We don't want them going here, here, or there. We want them going to places that we know are most likely to torture."
We must then look at the legality and/or possible intentions of choosing such destinations.
From some of the links I posted:
Quote:
The allegations are part of a continuing debate between the United States and European governments on the practice of "extraordinary renditions," or the overseas arrests or abductions of suspected terrorists by U.S. officials. British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, who supported the U.S. war in Iraq, wrote to Washington on behalf of the European Union (EU) asking for formal clarification of the policy—specifically raising the issue of covert prisons in Eastern Europe and CIA airplanes stopping in European bases, which may be in violation of international law.
Quote:
The extent of U.S. agencies' legal authority to carry out renditions remains unclear. The United States is a signatory to the UN's Geneva Convention Against Torture that prohibits the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners. But although President Bush issued a February 2002 directive stating all detainees should be treated "humanely," Washington has determined the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the war on terrorism. A still-classified March 19, 2004, draft memo by the Justice Department authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to render terrorism suspects out of Iraq to foreign countries for interrogation. The CIA was also granted broader authority to act independently by a still-classified presidential directive signed just after 9/11. And in 2002, another Justice Department memo (PDF) for President Bush's then-legal counsel Alberto Gonzalez—now the U.S. attorney general—advised the White House that torturing al-Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified."
Quote:
The controversy touches on a broader European discomfort with the Bush administration's approach to countering terrorism. Experts say the outrage over the clandestine prisons and secret flights stems from two broader issues plaguing transatlantic relations: Europe's discontent with Washington's unwillingness to grant due process to terror suspects and making assurances that these suspects' human rights were not violated during allegedly abusive interrogations. Experts say both issues—due process and the alleged use of torture—are in contradiction with European norms on human rights.
Quote:
In response to media reports that the United States is detaining top al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons in eight countries, including Romania and Poland, European officials have launched a series of investigations. These moves follow a spate of stories in Europe alleging that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is ferrying terrorist suspects by air between the so-called black sites and countries in the Middle East that regularly torture detainees.
Quote:
"Since it began ... in the spring of 2002, fewer than 100 people have been detained at CIA's facilities," Hayden said, adding that the number of renditions was even smaller, in the "mid-range two figures."
"These programs are targeted and selective. They were designed for only the most dangerous terrorists and those believed to have the most valuable information, such as knowledge of planned attacks," he said. "But they also have been the subject of wild speculation, both here and overseas."
Why send the "most dangerous terrorists and those believed to have the most valuable information" to such sites, if it was not implicit that they would be interrogated more harshly?
Quote:
When Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, stated on International Human Rights Day that international human rights law was a casualty of the so-called war on terrorism [recorded video], one might have expected the United States, a self-styled “champion” of human rights and democracy globally, to take notice. But since it was US policy at issue - specifically, attempts by US policymakers to redefine torture to make virtually any act permissible and to redefine and limit the range of persons protected by international humanitarian law - US criticism was turned not on the torturers, but on Arbour. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton immediately denounced Arbour’s critique as illegitimate and inappropriate [recorded video], notwithstanding her position as the senior international civil servant for human rights and a highly-respected jurist.
Quote:
The Bush Administration’s attempts to redefine human rights and its own humanitarian obligations put it squarely on a collision course with European countries even before news of secret prisons in Europe and the use of European airports and airspace for the transfer of rendered persons emerged earlier this month. US attempts at redefinition and obfuscation reveal a cultural chasm; European countries take their human rights obligations seriously, not as mere annoyances to be shelved when national security is at risk, but as serious constraints to be respected by law-abiding nations. By contrast, the debate in the US suggests a view that human rights obligations constitute unjustified interference by lawyers into the important business of fighting terrorism.
Quote:
The divide between Europe and the US concerns the interpretation and application of the 1984 Convention against Torture [text], but it runs even deeper, as proscriptions against torture have become more legally entrenched and elaborated in Europe, thanks to the work of the European Court of Human Rights. In analyzing analogous language in the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court has been quite clear: it is simply impermissible to deport or otherwise remove a person to a country where she might be tortured.
Whatever the real reason, it is important to note the "F.YOU" stance that we are taking, when it comes to shipping suspected terrorists to places where they might be tortured.
Quote:
The outrage of Europeans, ranging from the German and British leaders to EU members of Parliament, has forced US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to clarify US policy on torture: the United States, she said on her recent European trip, does not transport terrorism suspects "for the purpose of interrogation using torture" and "will not transport anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured." She further indicated that the US sought reassurances from countries to which suspects have been rendered that these detainees will not be tortured.
This is, however, insufficient to meet US obligations under the Torture Convention, or to guarantee that suspects will not actually be tortured.
Quote:
Let’s consider the specific obligations under the Torture Convention: states parties are obliged not only to refrain from torture, but article 3.1 bars states from returning or extraditing individuals to countries where there are “substantial grounds for believing” that they might be tortured. This assessment is made, under article 3.2, by examining a state’s record, looking for the presence of a “consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.” It is not enough, based upon the plain language of the convention, to ask for a promise that a suspect will not be tortured, not where all of the evidence makes clear that the suspect will likely face torture.
So...with all of the evidence that seems to back the theory that the extraordinary rendition of suspects to these countries is being done for the purpose that they are most likely to be tortured there, what evidence do you have that this is not the case, besides the statement of the Administration that "we're not doing it for that reason?"
