DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on February 20, 2007, 09:58:40 AM
-
Al Gore was for "extraordinary rendition" before he was against it
By TigerHawk at 11/23/2005 12:01:00 AM
While we're on the subject of the loyal opposition's wholesale memory failure, perhaps it is worth reviewing Al Gore's support for the practice of "extraordinary rendition" (aggressively anti-rendition Wikipedia entry here). I stumbled across this passage in Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, published last year in a fairly blatant attempt to compare the Bush administration's anti-terrorism efforts unfavorably with those of Bill Clinton:
Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government.... The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass." (pp. 143-144)
This passage is especially interesting in light of Gore's more recent speechifying, in which he specifically denounced rendition. No more "go grab his ass."
Al Gore supported rendition before al Qaeda had declared war on the United States and hung its battle flag on the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, the African embassies, the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Bali disco, the Madrid trains, and the United Nations. But after those defeats, Al Gore changed his mind. Has any reporter for any major news organization bothered to ask Gore to explain his reasoning?
embedded links (http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2005/11/al-gore-was-for-extraordinary.html)
-
Would somebody like to step up to the plate and just for Christ sake say "This is wrong?"
Somehow, "Algore would do it too" doesn't seem to inspire a whole lot of confidence in the moral character of your country's leadership. Soon I will become disillusioned with the whole bunch of them.
-
Soon I will become disillusioned with the whole bunch of them.
Will become...?
I've been there for a while.
-
Yeah, I know. That was meant to be ironic.
-
I must have missed something here. What is wrong with nabbing a terrorist overseas?
-
There's nothing wrong with nabbing a terrorist overseas. The problem is whether he will be treated in accordance with his basic human rights, including the right not to be tortured.
Just for you, Professor: from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the U.S.A. signed on to):
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room, does it?
-
There's nothing wrong with nabbing a terrorist overseas. The problem is whether he will be treated in accordance with his basic human rights, including the right not to be tortured.
Just for you, Professor: from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the U.S.A. signed on to):
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room, does it?
What body guarantees these basic human rights?
How are they doing thus far?
-
<<What body guarantees these basic human rights?..
The member states are responsible for observing the Declaration each in its own jurisdiction. There's probably an international sanctions mechanism for egregious violators (I'm just guessing here) but at some stage it would probably have to pass through the Security Council and be subject to the Great Power veto system there.
<<How are they doing thus far?>>
It was a slow process, but IMHO there was progress, along the model of two steps forward, one step back. There was always backsliding but the overall momentum, incrementally, was forward. Of course, since the Bush administration took over, the whole thing's in free-fall. Hopefully, this administration won't last, and with the next administration, maybe the UN can pick up the pieces and start rebuilding. I don't mean to say that the U.S. was the biggest violator - - far from it. But they're influential by example and otherwise, and I believe they've engineered an enormous set-back for the campaign against torture.
-
<<What body guarantees these basic human rights?..
The member states are responsible for observing the Declaration each in its own jurisdiction. There's probably an international sanctions mechanism for egregious violators (I'm just guessing here) but at some stage it would probably have to pass through the Security Council and be subject to the Great Power veto system there.
<<How are they doing thus far?>>
It was a slow process, but IMHO there was progress, along the model of two steps forward, one step back. There was always backsliding but the overall momentum, incrementally, was forward. Of course, since the Bush administration took over, the whole thing's in free-fall. Hopefully, this administration won't last, and with the next administration, maybe the UN can pick up the pieces and start rebuilding. I don't mean to say that the U.S. was the biggest violator - - far from it. But they're influential by example and otherwise, and I believe they've engineered an enormous set-back for the campaign against torture.
So to paraphrase, it looks good on paper and BTW the US under Bush is bad except when they are good.
Got it.
-
<<So to paraphrase, it looks good on paper . . . >>
Yeah, it looks good on paper. Is there something wrong with looking good on paper?
I'm not sure I take your meaning on that. What's it supposed to do, look bad on paper?
<<and BTW the US under Bush is bad except when they are good. >>
I think I implied that the US under Bush was bad (no surprises there,) but I don't recall that I made any exception at all. I certainly did not imply that there was anything good about the US under Bush. What are you driving at anyway?
-
So the idea is strong in concept but poorly implemented.
Perhaps the problem is with so many layers of authority, no one is accountable.
Maybe with some fine tuning and tinkering and plenty of encouragement for meaning well they will move it a littlle closer to reality.
-
<<So the idea is strong in concept but poorly implemented.
<<Perhaps the problem is with so many layers of authority, no one is accountable.
<<Maybe with some fine tuning and tinkering and plenty of encouragement for meaning well they will move it a littlle closer to reality.>>
That's pretty much the size of it. Like the UN itself, this is a 20th Century idea, meant to do away with the practices of thousands of years. Both of these ideas ultimately represent a very primitive form of world government, or at least of a world governed by laws. There's a very long road ahead, and you have to expect a lot of set-backs. That's what I meant by two steps forward, one step back. The fine tuning and tinkering etc. go with the territory. This is a project that will never be completed in my lifetime, but I think every fifty years or so, people looking back will see some small progress.
In regard to your crack about moving it "a little closer to reality," I think it's the supporters of Article 5 who are the realists - - they know how difficult the way forward is going to be, how many set-backs they will encounter, and how slow the overall progress will be, they are the ones who don't have any expectations of dazzling progress or brilliant successes. Those who need to "move closer to reality" are those who ridicule Article 5 and the campaign against torture generally for its ineffectiveness and lack of visible progress.
-
So the idea is strong in concept but poorly implemented.
Isn't that what you could say for most liberal/social ideas and their programs implimented by the government? "X", well intentioned, "looks good on paper", and so what if it doesn't work, it means well, and if you point out how it doesn't work, you must be against X. I think that's how it works
-
In regard to your crack about moving it "a little closer to reality," I think it's the supporters of Article 5 who are the realists
You want to make it reality.
Tie membership and aid benefits into compliance and enforcement of the rights by member states.
-
<<Isn't that what you could say for most liberal/social ideas and their programs implimented by the government? "X", well intentioned, "looks good on paper", and so what if it doesn't work, it means well, and if you point out how it doesn't work, you must be against X. I think that's how it works>>
I think with some liberal social ideas like the War on Poverty, the expectations were that the law WOULD have a major effect on poverty in the foreseeable future. I remember the atmosphere when the legislation passed, this was a very optimistic "can-do" time and the pitfalls weren't so apparent.
On the other hand, I don't believe anyone who signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights believed that a practice as ancient as torture would be eliminated any time soon. It was envisaged from the beginning as a long, slow campaign with many setbacks along the way. It just wasn't anticipated that any of the set-backs would come from the U.S.A.
-
It just wasn't anticipated that any of the set-backs would come from the U.S.A.
One might question whether your priority is implementing the Bill or Rights or bashing the US of A.
are the disenfranchised just pawns in your manifestation of hatred?
-
<<You want to make it reality.
<<Tie membership and aid benefits into compliance and enforcement of the rights by member states. >>
It's not as easy as that. There are issues of sovereignty that won't permit effective inspection and enforcement. Most states will denounce torture, even those that practice it. So because of the sovereignty issue, there's no real enforcement. It's primarily an honour system, and there's a tremendous amount of stonewalling. There's very little will to enforce the Declaration and particularly when political considerations come into play.
When I was in Amnesty, during the Reagan years particularly, it was practically impossible to get the U.S. government to condemn any torture at all if it was being done by their client states in Latin America, but at least there was no suspicion that the U.S.A. itself was a torture state. What meagre condemnation there was, the odd time it would occur, carried some weight. Today it would be pointless to lobby the U.S. to denounce torture anywhere, the condemnation itself would provoke nothing more than hollow, cynical laughter.
-
<<One might question whether your priority is implementing the Bill or Rights or bashing the US of A. >>
One might.
One might also question WHY I want to bash the US of A and WHOSE US of A I want to bash.
One might also question why anyone WOULDN'T want to bash a state that tortures helpless prisoners, sometimes to death.
<<are the disenfranchised just pawns in your manifestation of hatred?>>
Unfortunately, they're more like the cause of it.
-
It's not as easy as that.
Why not. Does membership not have value? Seems like the perfect application of a the carropt and the stick.
-
Think about it. Who's going to enforce a no-torture rule by kicking out the bad boys? The U.S.A.? And if anyone else tries to enforce the rule against another member, the question immediately becomes, "why us and not the U.S.A.?" Right now there's no possibility of enforcing the ban on torture the way you suggested.
Even before Bush, it wouldn't have been possible. The problem being, as I stated, sovereignty. States won't admit to torture and won't admit or cooperate with inspectors who could prove it.
Also, you have to keep in mind the primary purpose of the UN was to provide an alternative to war. Abolishing torture and declaring the rights of man, admirable as those goals are, are secondary in the UN's primary mandate. On that theory, it would be better to have torture states inside the UN than out, if it meant that the probability of war was thereby diminished.
-
Then why do you hold out hope that the UN is mankinds salvalvation when apparently there is no impedus to comply?
-
<<Then why do you hold out hope that the UN is mankinds salvalvation when apparently there is no impedus to comply?>>
It's a good question.
First of all, because it's a new direction. For thousands of years, international relations were basically (and still are) governed by the law of the jungle. There was nothing to restrain a state from attacking another state except for superior force. Wars grew more and more destructive. The U.N. (and its predecessor the League of Nations) represents a new way where the old way has brought nothing but disaster.
Second, because it's logical. The idea just makes sense. Why shouldn't countries be able to talk out their differences in an international forum, with guidance, and possibly helpful commentary from other nations with no particular axe to grind? Or even WITH an axe to grind? What's the harm in talking?
Third, because there ARE enforcement mechanisms. Your problem with them seems to be that they are weak and ineffectual. My answer to that would be that any kind of international enforcement mechanism is bucking a five-thousand-year-old trend and it's just taking its first baby steps. With time, they will become more effective, as the more powerful nations begin to see their advantages (see next paragraph.)
Fourth, I believe that the advantages of the stronger powers submitting to international law are only just now beginning to become apparent. This is because of the diffusion of power throughout the world. As knowledge and technology spread, prior advantages in raw power are levelling, albeit slowly. In that regard, I think that 9-11 was a real eye-opener. Fifty years ago, when the UN was in its infancy, who could have imagined that a band of fanatics as small as the al Qaeda commando could have inflicted such damage on the U.S.A., not necessarily the relatively small (yet unprecedented) toll of 3,000 dead and a few tall buildings, but the ever-escalating hundreds of billions of dollars necessitated by the reaction to them? As the cost of suppressing these enemies continues to grow, the relentless effects of economic competition will make themselves felt. Other countries not beset by the "terrorist" problems of the U.S. will inevitably grow in power and influence while the U.S.A. fights its economic battles against them with one hand only, while the other hand is busy batting off "terrorist" attacks or forestalling them. The world's biggest practitioner of violent solutions will just find them no longer cost-effective.
And fifth, historical example. Just as the battling kingdoms of the English heptarchy finally found it more expedient and immensely more profitable to unite under one common government and one common law, the same process will operate in the international sphere, albeit with much greater obstacles of language, culture and race. It's just the (slow-motion) way of the future. World government is coming and the UN is just the very first step.