Rendition

I am extremely surprised that there hasn’t been much raised on the Dope about the admission by Bush that CIA is operating its own ‘interrogation’ centres, where information was most forthcoming when ‘more aggressive’ interviewing techniques had been adopted, we no longer need to suspect, there is no doubt.

Yet another brick in the wall of US lies and atrocities which have been justified by the war on terror.

…and now a number of the ‘interviewees’ have been sent to Guantanamo to face military tribunals.

It seems to me that it would be impossible to put these persons before a judicial trial as any evidence gathered is highly likely to have been obtained under duress.

Given the way the US has behaved, its mission of imposing democracy on Iraq seems even more unlikely, its more like the US is creeping toward the values of Saddam Hussain.

I naturally assume that the apologists for torture and human rights abuse, those who think that denial of fair trial, abduction will find ways to justify the US position.

I expect it will be along the lines of the rights of the many versus the rights of the individual, and they just will not get it, not at all.

Look, the right wing blogosphere told us this was all ridiculous lies, so I’m sticking to that, no matter what this “President” says.

Ex-CIA analyst, and current leader of the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (and how’s that for a motherhood-and-apple-pie cause, by the way?), Ray McGovern sez that Bush is bringing this issue into the open now because he has a rather delicate balancing act to maintain: if he can’t successfully continue to make the case that he’s already entitled to authorize this activity, he may need Congress to change the laws so that he will be retroactively entitled to have done so. Otherwise, according to McGovern, he might actually be in some serious legal jeopardy.

McGovern says the same sort of thing is going to go down in Bush’s next speech with regard to the warrantless wiretapping. It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

When the story of the secret CIA torture prisons first came out. Bush and Cheney vehemently denied it. Now, he admits it. I’ve lost count of the times GWB has said, “We don’t torture.” He said it when the Abu Ghraib pix came out, he said it when Cheney was twisting arms in the senate to fight the anti-torture law, and now he said it again when he admitted he lied about the secret torture prisons. “Alternative interrogation procedures,” he calls it. He says some of these disappeared prisoners gave up valuable information about terrorism. I guess he could be right; he does occasionally tell the truth.

There is now a new manual for the armed forces. It says our side is not allowed to hood, strip, and “waterboard” prisoners. No dogs for intimidation, either. Of course, our noble president says we never did any of those things.

Aw, c’mon. Will you Bush-bashers never stop mischaracterizing the President’s remarks? He clearly said “we”, meaning Mr. Bush was never in the same room with the persons who might have subjected prisoners to the techniques banned in the new military manual, persons who I presume are employed by the CIA and are not actually military, and who therefore would probably not be subject to the restrictions listed in this new manual, which I remind you, just came out a couple of days ago and explicitly bans such techniques. By military personnel. From now going forward.

I think the above would be clear to anyone who is not so blinded by their Bush-hatred that they can’t see the perfectly obvious.

Liberal. Communist. Terrorist-lover.

Show of hands, people:

How many of you really believed there were no interrogation centers?

The silence likely stems from the dearth of dropping jaws.

The fuckwad currently occupying the office of President was about three miles from me today, talking at Cobb Galleria (Atlanta area). I heard some of his remarks, and he began by saying something like “Thanks to actions taken by this administration, our country is much safer than it was five years ago.” I thought, good idea, opening with a joke.

Its rather simple, really. We never did it, and will never do it again.

Unless extraordinary circumstances force us to, of course.

And it’s entirely coincidental that the president stacked Gitmo with some generally recognized bad evildoers mere weeks before the house takes up devising tribunal protocols for all the inmates.

What a fantastic triumph for human rights and American prestige, that prisoners have finally been moved from the secret probably-illegal prisons lacking any oversight to the NON-secret probably-illegal prison lacking any oversight.

So now it’s “alternative interrogation,” hmmmm?

At the risk of paging a certain Mr G*dwin, wasn’t there a government a while back which allowed one of its agencies to practice “heightened interrogation?” All in the name of national security, of course, and all nice and legal.

(Before you spend too much time sharpening the scythes and pitchforks and boiling the oil, I should point out that the circumstances aren’t remotely similar. It’s just that I can’t seem to find as much traction on this incline as I could not too long ago—and the rhetoric coming out of this Administration doesn’t help my confidence level at all.)

I thought the party line was more like, yes, they exist, but we need them, we don’t need to care about human rights, and what we SHOULD be doing is prosecuting reporters for publishing state secrets!

No worries, the president already entered him into the debate:

Having thus lost the debate, the president should now abandon Iraq, and let them keep their slaves.

So a Communist, a Nazi, and a religious fanatic walk into a bar…

So, why doesn’t Condy get her boss to invade some countries where slavery is actually a problem?
21st century slaves

Well **casdave **, I was going around virtually in all threads dealing with torture and pointing to this New Yorker’s report for more than a year and a half:

That link has become a virtual hand grenade, every single right winger ignored it or refused to post after I referred to that article, How I wish I had a link that would do that in any discussion!

I will point out the part that shows one big reason torture should not be used: because it can get an incompetent leader false information that justifies other wars:

That seems like a good idea at first glance, and there are some who advocate such a course, but it turns out that doing so is exactly analogous to** abandoning the Great Gates of Kiev to the Depredations of Gengis Khan!** :eek:

<shrug> Outrage fatigue ? Og knows I’ve got nothing left.

If someone had told me 5 years ago that the US would abduct and torture suspects in secret prisons, I would’ve laughed, made a comment about black helicopters and asked them to adjust their tinfoil hats. Now ? I seem to be unable to muster a reaction.

I hope some serious hell wil be raised this fall (and I will be in the fight), but I’m not at all optimistic.

The US has lost its way. It’s like watching a really good friend fall for a woman that’s really bad for him. You know it’ll end badly, but pointing it out just antagonizes him.

As for the apologists, give them some time. The mental gymnastics involved in changing viewpoint from “Secret prisons are a vicious leftwing media lie made up to smear the president” to “Secret prisons are an obvious necessity and the vicious leftwing media are just out to smear the president” are dangerous to undertake without a bit of warm-up.

Oh conservatives like that it happens, make no mistake. What your conservative doesn’t like is being made to talk about it. Like a lot of things really. When you have a chat that reflects on rendition, kidnapping and so forth, other sorts of phrases start to breathe their last.

So look on the bright side, we shouldn’t be hearing anymore of the following obsolescences:

    • home of the brave
  • honorable military service
  • we didn’t start this war but by God we’re going to finish it
  • …*

Doubtless there is a whole dialect fading into disuse at this very moment. Thankfully.