Rendition... but no torture?

[chequita guevara]

You do realize that according to the document dump by Obama, the program was considered to be an "absolute success" right?

Documents produced by the Bush Administration. An Administration never, ever, never stooped to lying.

[Felch]

Except you're still condoning the torture that you know for a virtual certainty will occur in those countries...

Washing your hands of a problem like that is just about the lowest form of moral cowardice I can think of.

Well, then your memory is a little foggy.

On May 28, 1945, two thousand and forty six Cossack officers and generals, including the cavalry Generals Pyotr Krasnov, Andrei Shkuro, and Kelech-Giray, were disarmed and transported in British cars and trucks to a nearby Red Army-held town. There they were handed over to the commanding Red Army general, who ordered them tried for treason. Many Cossack leaders had never been Soviet citizens, having fled revolutionary Russia in 1920, hence they could not be guilty of treason. Some were executed immediately; the higher-ranking officers were tried in Moscow and then executed. Most notably, General Pyotr Krasnov was hanged in a public square. Helmuth von Pannwitz, the German general instrumental in the formation and leadership of the Cossacks taken from German PoW camps to fight the USSR, chose to accompany the Cossacks in their Soviet repatriation, and was executed with five Cossack generals and atamans in Moscow in 1947.

On June 1, 1945, the British forced an additional 32,000 Cossacks, including women and children, into cattle rail cars and trucks, and rendered to the Red Army for Soviet repatriation[citation needed]. Similar repatriations occurred that year in the American zones of occupation in Austria and Germany. The majority of Cossacks were sent to labor camps in the far North and Siberia. Most died; however, some escaped or lived until they were given amnesty by Moscow (see below). Some two million people were repatriated to the Soviet Union following WWII.[9] While the exact number of repatriated Cossacks is unknown, most modern historians estimate between 45,000-50,000; other estimates (usually not widely accepted) range between 15,000–150,000.

I know that's not topical, but it's fun to needle MOBIUS and his self-righteousness.

The Obama administration claims they'll be monitoring the situation to prevent torture. Even though that's not a 100% guarantee, it's at least more than the Bush administration ever did.

It makes a lot of sense to carry out rendition. If the person is a foreigner, their own government would probably have more luck in interrogating them than we would. Better understanding of culture, maybe using family connections or other difficult to quantify advantages. Besides, even without torture, I'm willing to bet that being in an Arab lock-up is more stressful than an American one.

[Felch]

Because the US, and the UK when it concerns us are countries that should be above such things, and where they are against the law.

We hold ourselves and each other to much higher standards, and so we should!

link



Human rights are theoretically universal. So why do we hold Nigeria to a lower standard than the United Kingdom? Is it because the people they torture are ******s?

This same issue bugs me about Israel and Palestine. Israel is held to a higher standard for no good reason.

Standards are standards. All nations should be judged by the same standards, because everybody in every country is endowed with the same fundamental rights.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WTF? The US condemns all sorts of countries for torture, year after year. Which does it hold to a lower standard?

And, of course, if you are engaged in condemning countries for torture, you should probably have clean hands yourself.

[Felch]

Quick search on "nigeria police torture" brought this up...

BBC Article on Nigerian police

Back at the Sars office the next day, two suspects are brought to Mr Osaghae's office.

One, a young man is accused of organising the rape and robbery of a woman who lives in a building he used to guard.

"You will take us to your accomplices," orders Mr Osaghae.

"I don't know who you are talking about," says the man.

"Why are you lying? Take him back to the cells. In 15 minutes you will tell the truth," says Mr Osaghae.

When asked what he meant by that, he refuses to elaborate.

Before speaking to another suspect, Mr Osaghae asks for 15 minutes alone with him.

When the BBC is let back in the room, the man tearfully confesses to being a kidnapper.

Mrs Okenyodo says the Cleen Foundation has pictures and witness statements that accuse Sars police of torture and killing of suspects.

Enugu Commissioner of Police Mohammed Zarewa denies his men beat confessions out of people - the deaths are likely to be as a result of fire-fights with armed criminals, he says.

"Any criminal can get a lawyer and make up a story," he says.

Mr Zarewa has just been posted to Enugu, and he promises to investigate any accusation levelled against his officers.

But Mrs Okenyodo says none of the cases brought up by police reform activists have been investigated.

"The east of Nigeria, in terms of policing, is crazy," she says.

[Felch]

WTF? The US condemns all sorts of countries for torture, year after year. Which does it hold to a lower standard?

And, of course, if you are engaged in condemning countries for torture, you should probably have clean hands yourself.

The problem Lori was pointing out is that for every high profile case there are thousands of people around the world who are tortured as part of routine police investigations. The public perception appears to be one of either blissful ignorance, or apathy.

The lower standard isn't official government posture (although the State department is as prone to error as anything else made by man) but rather the attitude that some in the West feel about their inherent superiority. It seems like many still regard Africans and Asians as childish retards, barely capable of making the right decision unless guided by the hands of enlightened white men. The people there are just as culpable for their mistakes as any of us.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem Lori was pointing out is that for every high profile case there are thousands of people around the world who are tortured as part of routine police investigations. The public perception appears to be one of either blissful ignorance, or apathy.

The lower standard isn't official government posture (although the State department is as prone to error as anything else made by man) but rather the attitude that some in the West feel about their inherent superiority. It seems like many still regard Africans and Asians as childish retards, barely capable of making the right decision unless guided by the hands of enlightened white men. The people there are just as culpable for their mistakes as any of us.

Um, no. Stop being retarded. People in the West appear to care more about what their countries are doing because they LIVE in them or are very close allies with those countries and thus work in close contact with them.

In addition, the US has had the greatest moral force since WW2 among the free world (tm) [mostly because the US has told so many people how they are violating human rights over the years], so it tends to create a really bad example when it starts torturing people. Its like if Mahatma Gandhi started electrocuting British officers balls.

[Ramo]

Rendition is another word for extradition. Which is hardly an intrinsically bad thing, or something that must be associated with torture. Whether the provisions that the Admin is proposing to monitor interrogations are sufficient is a separate matter.

[Felch]

Imran,

Holding America to a higher standard does make sense as a symbolic issue. However, symbolism won't free the people held captive in Iran, Burma, or Zimbabwe. Those and other lower profile nations (like Nigeria) ought to be held accountable, or else this is all a bunch of trendy hipster bull****.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the greatest moral force in the world (and it still is) isn't held to the same standard that it and its friends are holding to others, why would other countries or people in those countries want to care about their own?

And people DON'T decry ****hole governments like Iran, Burma, or Zimbabwe? What planet are you living on?

If you also can't see the difference between raising constant alarms against democratic governments, where change is able to occur through the masses and autocratic governments, where change is unlikely to occur regardless of action, then that's just being naive.

[Arrian]

This same issue bugs me about Israel and Palestine. Israel is held to a higher standard for no good reason.

No good reason?

Israel is a state. Palestine is not. That's for starters. Second, Israel loudly proclaims how wonderful it is, how it's a democracy surrounded by authoritarian monstrosities, etc. If you climb up on top of a mountain and proclaim your moral superiority, you're going to be held to a higher standard, and rightly so. Same with us. The US routinely criticizes other governments for torture and such. But when we do it, suddenly it's fine (or it's "not really torture" or whatever other bull**** excuse we choose to cling to).

This is the basic issue, really: you cannot simultaneously proclaim that you're the "good guys" and all that (greatest nation on earth!!!1111!!!) whilst doing the very things the "bad guys" are doing, for which you label them bad guys. It doesn't pass a basic laugh test, except amongst a certain segment of our own population.

-Arrian

[Felch]

If the greatest moral force in the world (and it still is) isn't held to the same standard that it and its friends are holding to others, why would other countries or people in those countries want to care about their own?

And people DON'T decry ****hole governments like Iran, Burma, or Zimbabwe? What planet are you living on?

If you also can't see the difference between raising constant alarms against democratic governments, where change is able to occur through the masses and autocratic governments, where change is unlikely to occur regardless of action, then that's just being naive.

You're right.

[Felch]

No good reason?

Israel is a state. Palestine is not. That's for starters. Second, Israel loudly proclaims how wonderful it is, how it's a democracy surrounded by authoritarian monstrosities, etc. If you climb up on top of a mountain and proclaim your moral superiority, you're going to be held to a higher standard, and rightly so. Same with us. The US routinely criticizes other governments for torture and such. But when we do it, suddenly it's fine (or it's "not really torture" or whatever other bull**** excuse we choose to cling to).

This is the basic issue, really: you cannot simultaneously proclaim that you're the "good guys" and all that (greatest nation on earth!!!1111!!!) whilst doing the very things the "bad guys" are doing, for which you label them bad guys. It doesn't pass a basic laugh test, except amongst a certain segment of our own population.

-Arrian

The difference between the good guys and the bad guys is never cut and dry. The Allies firebombed entire cities, and Hitler was kind to dogs. Everybody has the things they're not proud of, and everybody has some redeeming quality. But the problem comes when you demand perfection from the good guys and excuse any barbarism the bad guys commit. The difference between good guys and bad guys is either (a) the good guys are on my side or (b) the good guys are marginally less evil than the bad guys.

Israel killed about 1500 people when it invaded Gaza, slightly less than 1000 were civilians. That's fighting in some of the most densely populated places on the planet, against an enemy that sees nothing wrong with blending amongst the population. Yet it was criticized by the president of the UN General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, who labeled the offensive "genocide." He wasn't the only one to launch into hyperbole. I've seen a general trend towards people who just go with the conventional wisdom that the Palestinians are victims of Israeli cruelty.

Israel launched thousands of sorties. They were attacking an area with no real civil defense mechanism and greatly diminished medical resources. Even if they weren't actively trying to kill Palestinians, if they were merely indifferent to the civilians, you would have seen a civilian death toll in the tens of thousands. If they were actively trying to murder Palestinians - well - they've got The Bomb. There's really no limit to the damage Israel can cause. But that's not what they do. They do what they can to fight their enemies and limit collateral damage.

Hamas on the other hand, makes no effort whatsoever to discriminate between soldier and civilian. Yet they're lauded by the international community as "resistance fighters" and their war crimes are excused because they're not a state. It's a double standard, and double standards are not right. A crime is a crime no matter who commits it, and no matter who the victim is.

[Kuciwalker]

This is the basic issue, really: you cannot simultaneously proclaim that you're the "good guys" and all that (greatest nation on earth!!!1111!!!) whilst doing the very things the "bad guys" are doing, for which you label them bad guys. It doesn't pass a basic laugh test, except amongst a certain segment of our own population.

-Arrian

Thankfully, Israel doesn't do the very things the Palestinians are doing

[Drake Tungsten]

It needs to be said... "torture".