Yes, we are sending suspected terrorist to foreign countries where they can be tortured without getting our hands dirty, under "Double Secret Probation." But, according to the NYT, it's okay, because we've always done it this way, and besides, 9/11 changed everything. Even Dean Wormer wasn't this mendacious:
Administration officials have said that approach is consistent with American obligations under the Convention Against Torture, the international agreement that bars signatories from engaging in extreme interrogation techniques. But in interviews, a half-dozen current and former government officials said they believed that, in practice, the administration's approach may have involved turning a blind eye to torture. One former senior government official who was assured that no one was being mistreated said that accumulation of abuse accounts was disturbing. "I really wonder what they were doing, and I am no longer sure what I believe," said the official, who was briefed periodically about the rendition program.
Oh, and lest this be confused with legitimate counter-terrorism efforts:
The officials said that most of the people subject to rendition were regarded by counterterrorism experts as less significant than people held under direct American control, including the estimated three dozen high ranking operatives of Al Qaeda who are confined at secret sites around the world.
There are reasons torture is not allowed in this country, and it isn't just because the practice is cruel and unusual punishment. Evidence gathered under torture is notoriously unreliable. Which means this activity isn't about gathering evidence, even if the authorities say it is (and they don't, in this article). As the listed of people in the article shows, the practice of rendition is about terrorism. It is about interdicting terrorism with...greater terrorism. It's about who's the bigger terrorist: them, or us.
That which you most oppose, you most come to resemble.
No comments:
Post a Comment