Hey, I realize that working yourself up into a froth over this is a whole lot of fun, but try to apply whatever logical ability that you might have. I realize that it’s difficult - that’s why there’s so many foamers out there.
Let’s try it again.
There are gaping holes in this story. Things that simply don’t add up.
Point the First: Even if you accept the assertion that the US follows a so-called “rendition” policy, it means the direct deportation or transfer of persons under arrest, or otherwise in direct custody, to allied places where laws against torture aren’t quite as strict. The story goes something like this:
Dramatis Personae
Abdul - A person of Arab descent, originally from Torturstan.
Ryan - Evil CIA Agent
*Scene[/]
A holding cell, somewhere in the US
Our play opens. Centerstage, Abdul is bound to a chair. A bright light shines in his eyes. Enter Ryan, stage right.
Abdul: “I’ll never talk!”
Ryan: "Bwahahah! Talk you will! If not, it’s off to Torturstan with you! They know how to make scum like you cooperate!
And so, poor Abdul either talks, or he’s tortured into talking overseas. That’s what supposedly happens in a rendition. Shit, didn’t you get the memo? Maybe MoveOn lost your fax number?
Leaving aside obvious immoral and repugnant aspect of a torture strategy, at least this version of rendition makes some logical sense. The CIA, unable to get a terrorist suspect to reveal what he knows through legal means, and unable to torture him here, extracts the information by threatening deportation to a scary regime and, if that doesn’t work, actually following through. This plan, evil though it might be, could actually work.
But that’s not what Our Hero claims happened here. Again, he wasn’t arrested, detained, secretly abducted, or deported. The Americans let him go. He goes back to his daily life.
Let’s go over that again. The guy who is believed to be a terrorist suspect - however wrongheaded that might be - remains a free man. There’s no evidence from your article that he’s ever denied entry into the United States. I mean, the US may not be able to use torture, but the Feds still have the power to deny entry. We don’t need the Syrians to do that for us.
But we don’t. Instead, the Feds wring their hands impotently. Nothing happens to Our Guy. Until he makes his fatal mistake. He gets on a plane, of his own free will, and flies to Syria for a wedding. Aha! Now we have him! No more truck visits for you!
Come on. Does this make any sense at all? Will you concede that there’s a whole lot of legal things that the Feds could do between (a) Letting him go and (b) um… letting him go and hoping he gets invited to a wedding?
Point the Second: Given a choice, just who do you think should be investigated? Young Arab males, with large trucks, with a history of fervor towards Islamic causes, past membership in the Mujahidin, and recent pilot lessons? Apparently not. Perhaps you would focus our energies on 80-year old Irish Catholic nuns from Boise with an interest in crocheting scarves?