Condi can go and stuff it

[DanS]

Wow, you quote some tidbits from an article published AFTER I started this topic

It was reported yesterday. The article was the first one handy.

I'll get back to you if you should ever bother to discuss the treatment Masri received.

So I take it that you concede the point.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by DanS


It was reported yesterday. The article was the first one handy.

Ok, so you took some tidbits from the article that first came in handy and you connected it to the sentence.

So I take it that you concede the point.

Whatever makes you feel good dude.

[DanS]

Ok, so you took some tidbits from the article that first came in handy and you connected it to the sentence.

No. The Masri case was what you quoted from the WaPo and then you connected that with an imagined response from Rice. I was merely putting the actual response from Rice on the case in place of your imagined response from Rice on the case.

[Pekka]

"hush keep quiet", I would take it as an insult and disrespect,

HOWEVER what Condi said basically I don't see she said that. I think she said proper things, it remains to be seen if the promises are true and this is the most important thing. If not, then the US administation will be seen rogue, hostile and not friendly (illegal) here. So it's important these things won't happen in the future, and I'm not saying they happened because I don't know..

But the point is, I didn't hear her saying keep quiet on any diplomatic language. I didn't pull my panties on a twist. But should those words be neglected and action of darker side appear on our soil, then it becomes a serious matter.

[Colon™]

No. The Masri case was what you quoted from the WaPo and then you connected that with an imagined response from Rice.

Guess what? The WP article was not what I based the sentence on. It was what I based my indignation about Masri's treatment on. But whatever suits you huh?

Sheesh, has it still not gotten through to you you've been *****ing and whining all along about some colourful remark that wasn't meant to be taken literally?

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Pekka
"hush keep quiet", I would take it as an insult and disrespect,

HOWEVER what Condi said basically I don't see she said that. I think she said proper things, it remains to be seen if the promises are true and this is the most important thing. If not, then the US administation will be seen rogue, hostile and not friendly (illegal) here. So it's important these things won't happen in the future, and I'm not saying they happened because I don't know..

But the point is, I didn't hear her saying keep quiet on any diplomatic language. I didn't pull my panties on a twist. But should those words be neglected and action of darker side appear on our soil, then it becomes a serious matter.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rice+%22back+off%22+cia&btnG=Google+Search

Now don't get uppity she didn't said so literally and publicly. It's annoying enough there's already one person who has a rocket up his arse.

[Pekka]

right so basically this is your personal interpretation, yes?
Don't make it a FACT then

[The Mad Viking]

Actual transcripts. Its actually easier to read it than to bicker. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120500462.html

Of course, you can't make the transcript a thread title, and if you quote only 8 words you will be accused of taking it out of context...

The following parts I found noteworthy.

One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists. The individuals come from many countries and are often captured far from their original homes. Among them are those who are effectively stateless, owing allegiance only to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism.

Spin that lets the USA decide if someone is stateless because the USA disagrees with their policies. In violation of UN Charter...

We consider the captured members of Al Qaida and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents.

I don't think Condi or anyone else can explain what the "law of war" is. But this flies in the face of US stated policy, that the Geneva convention does not apply to "unlawful combatants". Of course, in Condi-speak, that meand that they are holding the detainees in accordance with the law, because no law applies and therefore, none was broken. :

For decades, the United States and other countries have used "renditions" to transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held, or brought to justice.

Major twist of spin.
Renditions in the past consisted of capturing a single individual on foreign turf and bringing him to the jurisdiction where their crimes occured or would be indicted. They took place where no extradition treaty existed.
Renditions of Canadian and German citizens from the USA to Syria and Afganistan? Never used by anyone before Dubya/USA.
Linking the capture of Carlos the Jackal, in the Sudan, back to France to current renditions strains credibility a bit too far.

In conducting such renditions, it is the policy of the United States, and I presume of any other democracies who use this procedure, to comply with its laws and comply with its treaty obligations, including those under the Convention Against Torture. Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to govern our operations. United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances.

The USA, however, objected to the legal definition of Torture under CAT. The USA, in fact, agreed only to complying with the 8th Amendment, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". Since the interrogation is not related to punishment at all, but simply intelligence gathering, one would presume that the definition of torture simply cannot apply.

From the Council on Foreign Relations website:

Torture, as defined by Article 1 of the 1984 Convention Against Torture, is the “cruel, inhumane, or degrading” infliction of severe pain or suffering, physical or mental, on a prisoner to obtain information or a confession, or to mete out a punishment for a suspected crime. The United States ratified the treaty in 1994 but took a reservation to the convention’s addendum on the definition of torture, deferring to the U.S. Bill of Rights’ Eighth Amendment, which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment.

Condi again:

The United States has fully respected the sovereignty of other countries that cooperate in these matters.

Which virtually implies that the US disregards the sovereignty of other countries that do not cooperate. And since "cooperate" means "do what we say" her statement is meaningless. It can be translated to "We don't do anything in a foreign country without their permission, unless they refuse to give us permission."

Finally, as she winds up to conclusion, she gets remarkably clear, in diplomatic terms:

We cannot discuss information that would compromise the success of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations. We expect that other nations share this view.

Diplo-speak for STFU.

Some governments choose to cooperate with the United States in intelligence, law enforcement, or military matters. That cooperation is a two-way street. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives.

Diplo-speak for if you don't do what we say, we won't tell you about impending attacks in your country. (Not that all this rendition BS helped Madrid or London anyway.)

It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries, and decide how much sensitive information they can make public. They have a sovereign right to make that choice.

Debate in and among democracies is natural and healthy. I hope that that debate also includes a healthy regard for the responsibilities of governments to protect their citizens.

This means "Talk about black sites at your own extreme peril."

* * Waits for DanS * *

Incidentally, I also found this tid-bit on Torture on the CFR website, immediately following the notation about the USA not agreeing to the CAT definition of torture:

However, the 1980 court case Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, in which a Paraguayan citizen won a suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals’ Second Circuit against a former Paraguayan police officer, established that torture falls under the realm of customary international law—thus, all countries, whether party to the Torture Convention or not, must abide. Further, the suit found that torturers become, “like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of mankind.” Other agreements that outline similar definitions of torture include the Geneva Conventions and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Apparently, the USA isn't too worried. Reasonable enough. No US court is going to declare a US official to be hostis humani generis. Even if the are...

[Colon™]

Originally posted by Pekka
right so basically this is your personal interpretation, yes?
Don't make it a FACT then

Nope, not a fact. You can't have "facts" in diplo-speak. Neither is it a personal interpretation though:

On the trip, she will remind allies they themselves have been cooperating in U.S. operations and tell them to do more to win over their publics as a way to deflect criticism directed at the United States, diplomats and U.S. officials said.

"It's very clear they want European governments to stop pushing on this," said a European diplomat, who had contact with U.S. officials over the handling of the scandals. "They were stuck on the defensive for weeks, but suddenly the line has toughened up incredibly," the diplomat said.

Rice, right before she headed to Europe: " Some governments choose to cooperate with the United States in intelligence, law enforcement, or military matters. That cooperation is a two-way street. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives."

http://www.us-mission.ch/Press2005/1205RiceEurope.htm

Now some back-ground info: it is likely European gov'ts knew what was going on, yet they (passively) consented with it. When European officials are pressing on the issue they may just be doing it because of public outrage and media pressure, not because they're indignified themselves. So if Rice states that some gov't choose to cooperate with the US, she's subtly reminding European gov'ts they may get implicated themselves if they press too hard. Moreover by stating that they share intelligence saving European lives, she implies the US not be as sharing if European officials continue to press. They're doing stuff like for Europeans' own good. In short and without the diplo-waffle: "hush, keep quiet you"

[Pekka]

I don't consider it to be STFU so it's your personal opinion. And this one is my personal opinion also.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Colon
Well, we already know Dan's position:

Missionary?

[Spiffor]

I personally suggest we threaten the US with stopping our cooperation in intelligence services if they ever do something like that again.

The war on terror is supposed to be about democracy and freedom. Arbitrary kidnappings and torture show that our side'd defeat comes from within. If the US ever uses such rogue methods on our territory again, we should treat its intelligence services exactly like Lybia's or Iran's.

[Last Conformist]

@Spiff: As I suppose you are well aware, that would be politically impossible.


Anyway, I get the impression Rice believes in this dictum of Churchill's: "Small nations must not tie our hands when we are fighting for their rights and freedom."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
@Spiff: As I suppose you are well aware, that would be politically impossible.

Well, the aim is to make a point. If anybody can arbitrarily kidnap and torture people, it's OUR services, not theirs

[Pekka]

Spiff, I don't agree with ya.

In theoretical level, sure. I mean, let's be pragmatic about it. This is serious stuff, and it has to has consequences and it needs to stop.

However, should this happen again, I would rather go for the .. how it happened, you know, who is responsible, if it enjoys wide support. If this is the works of only few deciding people, I would not make everyone else pay for it.

And furthermore, I do agree that terrorists can not defeat us, only we can defeat us. So I believe if it should happen it's our own fault, so we need to be careful, however making too strong response and effectively destroying cooperation, while it can be said the US did it, I think we should remain strong about it, because that is one of the things we can't afford. That is the deviding the West. West must keep tight in order for it to work in the future as well and if someone makes mistakes and steps aside for a while, we need to slap them back on and not make too big punishments.

That means using backchannels, using them strong. Not public threats, but stronger private action. If this administration can not see how important of an issue this is at least to EU and Europe, then we need to make them understand, it's as simple as that.

But if you want to go on and be a man of principle, hey how's this for a principle, let's keep tight and let not the work of few people interrupt the greater good? I think that's better principle. Doesn't mean this problem would be ignored, on the contrary.