I sat around yesterday with CNN (Int'l version) on television, waiting for Rice to give her much anticipated speech before heading off to Germany. You can read the entire text of it here but I want to parse some of it below.
Oddly, she seemed very nervous and flubbed many of her lines. Normally she's a very polished speaker but she kept reading the prepared comments as though she was quite unfamiliar with them. I wonder if the speechwriters weren't playing around with the speech until the very last minute, trying to polish what is definitely a turd (excuse my French).
The United States and many other countries are waging a war against terrorism. For our country this war often takes the form of conventional military operations in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Sometimes this is a political struggle, a war of ideas. It is a struggle waged also by our law enforcement agencies. Often we engage the enemy through the cooperation of our intelligence services with their foreign counterparts.
We must track down terrorists who seek refuge in areas where governments cannot take effective action, including where the terrorists cannot in practice be reached by the ordinary processes of law. In such places terrorists have planned the killings of thousands of innocents – in New York City or Nairobi, in Bali or London, in Madrid or Beslan, in Casablanca or Istanbul. Just two weeks ago I also visited a hotel ballroom in Amman, viewing the silent, shattered aftermath of one of those attacks.
The United States, and those countries that share the commitment to defend their citizens, will use every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists. Protecting citizens is the first and oldest duty of any government. Sometimes these efforts are misunderstood. I want to help all of you understand the hard choices involved, and some of the responsibilities that go with them.
The entire tone of the speech definitely invokes the fact that the US doesn't want to take full share of the blame for whatever happened (or is still happening). Rice invoked the fact that European gov'ts have "cooperated" several times, definitely trying to put the onus on them to explain their roles.
As for terrorists in "areas where governments cannot take effective action", this is a crock of you know what. Two of the known cases of CIA abductions occurred in Milan, Italy and to a
German citizen who traveled to Macedonia. Both of these two men were in friendly, allied countries with operational judicial systems which could handle any criminal charges relating to terrorism. Furthermore, both Germany and Italy could extradite anyone to the USA through normal channels.
What efforts are "misunderstood" exactly? Kidnapping is kidnapping. Giving Italy a dossier on someone's criminal terrorist activities so the person can be arrested and tried in a court of law is understood by even a simpleton.
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. Many are extremely dangerous. And some have information that may save lives, perhaps even thousands of lives.
The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice, which were designed for different needs. We have to adapt. Other governments are now also facing this challenge.
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. We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people. We must question them to gather potentially significant, life-saving, intelligence. We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible.
It's the old "we saved lives" explanation for anything the United States does. Well there is no justification of "saving lives" that exempts people from US laws, including those of due process (see the 5th amendment). Interestingly, Rice earlier says what she
thinks is the government's first duty - "protecting citizens". No it's not. The first duty of the government is to
protect and uphold the Constitution. She should know that, as both she and her boss had to swear an oath to do so.
As for what "accordance with the law of war" means, it means nothing when Rice says it. The only "law of war" is the Geneva Conventions, which specifically list how captured people should be treated, which the United States has
violated. And American domestic law says honor all treaties in effect, including the Geneva Conventions. It's only by twisting legal "loopholes" that Rice can refer to any kind of "law of war", which is about the most ambiguous and stupid phrase I've ever heard.
As for "captured members of Al-Qaeda", well the US has detained more than 80,000 people. Were all of these Al-Qaeda members? If so, we've got a serious problem on our hands. But the truth is that many, many of these people were completely innocent, not just of being terrorists but of any crime at all. So the US is capturing people under the "law of war" which aren't any threat in the first place, and violating these people's rights is exactly why the world is so angry with the United States.
And which terrorists exactly have been "brought to justice"? I don't remember any trials for captured terrorists. In fact, I don't remember any jail sentences for convicted terrorists either. Not a single one!
In some situations a terrorist suspect can be extradited according to traditional judicial procedures. But there have long been many other cases where, for some reason, the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option. In those cases the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in a rendition. Such renditions are permissible under international law and are consistent with the responsibilities of those governments to protect their citizens.
Rendition is a vital tool in combating transnational terrorism. Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration. Last year, then Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet recalled that our earlier counterterrorism successes included "the rendition of many dozens of terrorists prior to September 11, 2001."
-- Ramzi Youssef masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and plotted to blow up airlines over the Pacific Ocean, killing a Japanese airline passenger in a test of one of his bombs. Once tracked down, a rendition brought him to the United States, where he now serves a life sentence.
You know things are bad when the justification is now "well Clinton did it, so we can too!". Seriously.. that's bad.
Ok, let's talk about "renditions". First of all, as I stated earlier, in countries like Italy and Germany, people can be extradicted under normal judicial procedures to the United States. Oh wait a minute, no they can't! Not if it's possible that the
death penalty be enforced. See that's because Europe tends to think of capital punishment as a barbaric and cruel custom that only despotic nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia use.
And as for
Ramzi Youssef, he was arrested in Pakistan with the full (and public) cooperation of the government there. He wasn't formally extradicted in the sense of a judicial proceeding but it was done with the full cooperation of the government there. And then here's another major thing to remember - Youssef was charged with a crime, given access to lawyers and the due process of law, and convicted in a civilian, open,
public trial. No ghost planes and Guantanamo Bay necessary!!
One of history’s most infamous terrorists, best known as "Carlos the Jackal," had participated in murders in Europe and the Middle East. He was finally captured in Sudan in 1994. A rendition by the French government brought him to justice in France, where he is now imprisoned. Indeed, the European Commission of Human Rights rejected Carlos’ claim that his rendition from Sudan was unlawful.
You know what? Carlos the Jackal
also was tried in an open, public trial according to the laws of France. He wasn't hidden away in some unknown black site around the globe, denied access to lawyers, and interrogated for years. Nope. He had a full trial.
The United States has respected -- and will continue to respect -- the sovereignty of other countries.
-- The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.
-- The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured.
-- The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.
I can't even tell you how pathetic it is that the Secretary of State has to deny that my country tortures anyone. Next thing we know, she'll be saying "The United States has not, and does not drink the blood of babies". Ugh... speaking of torture, I see my own government lawmakers are
"close" to passing a law that bans torture but that some people are "haggling" over it. What is there to haggle over?
I also see more of the old "European gov'ts share the blame" in the above statements about respecting sovreignty. Except why then is Italy trying to get 22 CIA agents extradicted to face charges of
not respecting Italy's sovreignty?
As for the statement that the US does not fly people to countries to be tortured, that is just a bald-faced lie. I hope someone in the European press has the guts to ask her about
Maher Arar, who was definitely flown by the US to a country where he
was tortured. And that's just one example.
International law allows a state to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. Detainees may only be held for an extended period if the intelligence or other evidence against them has been carefully evaluated and supports a determination that detention is lawful. The U.S. does not seek to hold anyone for a period beyond what is necessary to evaluate the intelligence or other evidence against them, prevent further acts of terrorism, or hold them for legal proceedings.
The duration of hostilities? Exactly when is that going to end? There have been terrorists incidents in the United States for more than 100 continuous years! Golly gee whiz.. are we really getting towards Orwell's 1984 version of continuous war? I sure hope not. What a disengenous statement by Ms. Rice, really. This is just atrocious to blame this behavior on a "war", which is a war that never ends, therefore these actions can take place for the forseeable future right?
The rest of her statement is "we dee double dog swear we don't torture. And everything we do saves lives so it's worth it". I'll let you read the exact words if you're in the mood to stomach such a childish explanation for such horrific acts. Rice and this administration literally take the point of view of "we can do whatever we want because it's terrorism damnit!" as though it was going to wipe out the human race if it's not stopped immediately. Car crashes are about a million times deadlier than terrorism is, so let's get a little perspective on this. I'm not going to give up my civil rights simply because the government wants to make a safer automobile, so why would I want to do so in order to "stop terrorism"?
Not to mention that... well you know, terrorism has existed
long before 9/11. I know that's a shock to some people but it's true. It happened in Northern Ireland, to give a single example, and all the abrogations of human rights and torture and harsh interrogation and military might and increased troop levels
did not stop it. In fact, terrorism flourished until a
real solution was found - a series of mediations and negotiations so that the disaffected parties (who support and finance the terrorists) had a stake in making the peace process work. But they weren't like the terrorists of
today of course, who are just evil killing Satan spawn with no consciousness. Nope. All the solutions in the past which ended terrorist attacks magically won't work now, because the terrorists of today are
evil doers! Evil doers I say!
Try talking to someone who lived in Belfast in the 1970's and ask if they've seen the work of "evil doers" ok? Talk to the people of Senegal or Angola. Talk to the people of southern Mexico. They all suffered from terrorist attacks of a very evil and horrific nature and yet magically those areas are at peace now. But I forgot once again, those were not today's super duper evil terrorists, on whose behalf the entire free world must suffer abrogations of civil rights and due process of law in order to stop. Sorry, my bad!
Anyway, just about every newspaper in Europe and indeed many in America are covering this story so no need to link to all of them. You can read the
Guardian's piece for a good summary of what most of them say.
Most of them also note what I myself noted when I saw Rice's speech - she never once
denied the network of secret prisons in Eastern Europe. I think that just about confirms that they do or did exist. To what extent, and whether harsh interrogation or torture was applied, we'll have to wait and find out. But it seems almost certain now that they are or were
real. Unfortunately...
Speaking of the
Guardian, today they've got an article on Britain's possible role in this whole affair:
The Guardian publishes for the first time today the details of more than 200 flights in and out of Britain of aircraft owned or controlled by the CIA. The agency has used almost 20 airports across the UK during the period when its agents have been snatching terror suspects and taking them to countries where they may be tortured. As well as enjoying access to a number of RAF bases, the agency has been flying in and out of civilian airports across the country. Its destinations include not only major airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick, but small airports at Bournemouth on the south coast and Wick in the north of Scotland.
Last night MPs, who have formed a campaign group to challenge British support for the CIA's so-called extraordinary renditions programme, met for the first time and demanded that the government come clean about the use of UK facilities. The all-party parliamentary group on extraordinary renditions was presented with a report by American legal academics which suggested that Britain may be breaking international law by "acquiescing" in torture.
Unbelievable.. and once again, most of this information about CIA flights comes from public records because most of these flights were done with ostensibly civilian aircraft. Once again, Menzies Campbell is absolutely hitting the nail on the head:
"What possible purpose is served by rendition other than to subject individuals to harsher treatment than would otherwise be the case?" he asked.
Indeed...
In other news, it seems that
airports in Ireland were used by the CIA, despite Rice telling the Irish government last week that they weren't. RTE is saying that flights landed 38 times in Shannon airport, which was
specifically denied last week. So either RTE is badly mistaken or else the U.S. government is bald-faced lying to one of its most loyal and trusted allies.
Indeed
Amnesty International says it has tracked 50 flights through Shannon.
And back across the pond, the government in
Canada is close to opening a formal inquiry into whether its airports were used by the CIA to transport prisoners:
Campaigning in St. John's, Prime Minister Paul Martin was asked about allegations that private aircraft chartered by the CIA have been used to ferry suspected terrorists through Canadian airspace.
Martin said he has "checked with the Deputy Prime Minister [Anne McLellan], checked with the officials in charge, and there are absolutely no indications that anything of that kind is occurring."
But rumours the CIA is landing planes at the St. John's airport to refuel persist. Airport officials says if no one gets off any plane that lands simply to refuel, then no one knows who is on board.
After meeting with the leadership in Germany, Rice will then fly to my home country of Romania later today. She'll only be here about 3 hours and that will be to sign a new defense agreement by which the United States will (most probably) establish a permanent military base here. Just about every gov't official in Romania is quite excited about this and there's
very little coverage in the Romanian press about possible CIA jails or CIA flights through Romanian territory.
Most of the articles appearing in today's Romanian papers are just fluff or "happy shiny" pieces about the base agreement.
Cotidianul elaborates on the line most Romanians are most concerned about - the allegation that Romania hosted a secret jail tarnishes the nation's image.
The
WaPo meanwhile conducted a poll elsewhere in the world and found out something unsurprising - most people don't want the US conducting secret interrogations on their soil. Meanwhile 38% of Americans say "torture is ok" in some circumstances. Well heck then, I say drinking the blood of babies is ok in some circumstances too. After all, the blood of babies is the vital ingredient to a powerful voodoo spell that stops terrorism. Does that sound kooky? Well it's no less kooky than the current United States policy, which has
increased terrorism!!
Let's face it - the Bush administration's policies of secret jails, extraordinary rendition and/or torture has been completely ineffective and useless, not to mention morally repugnant to the point of evil. And the justification used, saying "well others went along with it" or "this is a war" is childish and almost sociopathic. If this is a war, it's time to find a strategy that works, because this one isn't. It's just alienating our allies, debasing ourselves as human beings, and increasing terrorism.
As always... the investigation continues.

Peace