extraordinary rendition

[BT]

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

[Michael Tee]

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.

[hnumpah]

Soon I will become disillusioned with the whole bunch of them.

Will become...?

I've been there for a while.

[Michael Tee]

Yeah, I know.  That was meant to be ironic.

[The_Professor]

I must have missed something here. What is wrong with nabbing a terrorist overseas?

[Michael Tee]

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?

[BT]

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?

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

<<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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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?

[BT]

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.
 

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.