While the photo is disturbing, I also was surprised to see that when I image-searched for Michelle Obama, Google asked me "Did you mean Michelle Obama monkey?".

Um, no. I did not.

That said, I agree with the sentiment in the comments that while this image is disgusting, I prefer to err on the side of free speech.

Do you think people in Iraq who fought against the U.S. in invasion were "terrorists"?

As I said in my first letter in this thread:

It does not seem like insurgents who use IEDs on American soldiers can accurately be called "terrorists". However, insurgents who set off bombs in marketplaces may very well meet that definition. I'm not sure which kind of recruits Nasr was suspected of seeking out.

Are you claiming that there have never been any Islamist terrorists in Iraq since we invaded?

Was the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- and Shock and Awe -- a "terrorist" act?

I think one could reasonably make that claim. In fact, I suggested as much in a letter in this thread posted just before yours (meaning you surely didnt get the chance to read it). However, that's irrelevant to the question you posed in your post.

Nasr's friends knew he was disappeared. When he was released, he talked about what happened - including how he was abducted, sent to Egypt and tortured.

Were either of these things the intent of the CIA? I find that unlikely.

Numerous news accounts over the last ten years talked about the dark and lawless things the CIA was doing

True. But administration officials often complained about the press doing these things. Again, the question is intent. If the CIA intended their actions to be made public so that entire populations (including innocents) would be terrorized, then it fits the definition of "terrorism". However, I see no evidence that this was the CIA's intent.

Dick Cheney publicly announced immediately after 9/11 that the U.S. would spend time on "The Dark Side."

True, but that's a vague comment not necessarily directed at civilian populations. More importantly, Cheney is not a CIA official. He has never been linked to the case we are discussing.

We published pictures to the world of prisoners clad in chains and orange-jumpsuits thousands of miles away from their homes in an island-prison.

Again, not the CIA's doing, and not relevant to the question you asked in your post.

Yes, I think that sounds far, far more like terrorism than recruiting Muslims to fight against a foreign army invading a Muslim country.

Well, you listed several things which are outside the bounds of the original question you posed. I could bring up the 9/11 attacks or the Madrid or London or Bali attacks, but I won't since they were not a part of your question which I was answering. Nasr has never been accused of involvement in any of those things, so they're not relevant. Similarly, the CIA agents who were just convicted have never been accused of involvement in the Shock and Awe campaign or what Dick Cheney decided to say on television, so I don't see the relevance to the question at hand.

If there's evidence that Nasr was actually recruiting people to engage in actual terrorism, please point to it.

As I said in both previous messages, my point was not to claim that Nasr is necessarily a terrorist. But he was listed in court documents as "one of the heads of the Islamic terrorist organizations in Europe". If a court document identifies him that way, is it so off-base to call him a "suspected terrorist"?

Even if it is, that does not show that the CIA engaged in terrorism in this case. If there's evidence that the CIA was engaging in the rendition of Nasr with the intent to make this rendition public in order to terrorize innocent people, please point to it.

As a side note, when the US military conducts an operation that is specifically designed to "shock and awe" a population (an operation that includes killing many civilians) or when Tom Friedman advocates beating up on countries to teach them a lesson or getting them to Suck. On. This., it's difficult to see how that differs from "terrorism".