Letters to the Editor
-
@aeschylus
Sometimes in order to be on the side that wins, one must cross over a line.
How do you know if you've never tried to do otherwise?
Arguments such as these are always made with both the clarity and the fog of hindsight. You have the ability to look at past actions and pick those that worked out, and you have the inability, due to the way complex systems become single pathways in reverse time, to understand what any of the alternate routes might have been or what their outcomes would be.
In emergency medicine, for example, there are constant pressures to step over the line, and even those who claim that no one ever saved anyone's life by sticking to the rules. But that's just because in all those cases where people stuck to the rules, the fact that the patient outcome could be good wasn't unexpected. It's very lucky for the general public that instead of some jerk who drools over the fantasy of performing an emergency laryngeal tracheostomy with a pen knife and a Bic pen, there are trained people who don't, who save lives that you never hear about because the methods they use are considered routine, and don't make it on TV.
Just like the non-torture interrogation methods used by trained people in the FBI.
-
Pressure the government to join the ICC
Over one hundred countries including all NATO allies signed on to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. One of the Clinton's administration's last acts was to join as signatory, after much US-requested negotiating to safe-guard the US military against frivolous prosecutions. Yes, rendition did begin during the Clinton administration, however this act would have helped to better hold the actions of US government agencies up to international scrutiny and to prosecute individuals guilty of such crimes as torture.
The Bush administration however has refused to ratify its involvement with the ICC. If it had, the interrogation methods mentioned in this article would be deemed crimes and subject to criminal prosecution. While admittedly the ICC is an institution in its early stages of development it does stand as a fundamental and necessary tool to protect human rights and to hold countries up to legal standards regarding such. The US, at one point, understood this. Now they like many 'torture states' refuse to adhere to its principles. The US stands with China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Russia, Egypt, Iran, Israel and Turkey in this regard.
As a Canadian it's one thing to see torture blithely depicted in American popular culture à la Jack Bauer (embarrassingly, played by Canadian Keifer Sutherland) but quite another to know that a real life Canadian like Maher Arar can be submitted to torture by the country that once stood as your closest friend and ally, and was once but now is not an international leader on issues of justice and human rights.
-- Toronto Reader
-
Toronto Reader, i see you weren't paying attention
Israel is not a "torture state" that's why, unlike the others it has never been chosen by the U.S. as an "extreme rendition" site - but considering in what regard it's held by the world, who can blame it for not allowing the world to judge its fate?
ondelette, whatever the judgment of the court, it's left to the police to enforce it. when they don't (as in little rock, 50 years ago) the national guard is called in to enforce it. when even *they* don't (the cherokee sued in the supreme court 170 years ago to stop the state of georgia from evicting them from their ancestral homelands) they won, but Pres Jackson said, "they made the ruling, now let them enforce it" and so came the "trail of tears". since it always will be the U.S. who has the onus of enforcing these judgments (as in kosovo) why should they allow themselves to be hauled into court via the insolence of the EU? really! so afraid of moslem anger, who would they indict? they've already indicted Israel (over the wall - which *has* stopped much bombing) and Sharon. -
Let's rendition them to San Francisco!
Perhaps it would be more acceptable to Salon if instead of Syria we renditioned the terrorists to a celebrated San Francisco institution, such as, say, the Folsom Street Fair or kink.com. You could even bring them doughnuts!
-
I have been paying attention,
David Sugarman, but can't really waste much attention on your counter-argument. You seem to be saying that it's not worth holding the US to international or judicial standards, such as those handed down by the ICC, since the US would be the only country capable of enforcing such rulings. This smacks of the sentiment of US exceptionalism that makes international coalitions difficult and moreso casts the US as the world's judge, jury and 'executioner' - exactly the self-appointed role that pisses off so many of your country's former allies. (But I guess Bush did win a majority, eh? His administration's slant on the world clearly still has the support of many Americans). As for your contention about Israel not endorsing torture, I'll simply do a bit of the research you could have done and direct to past news reports detailing Israel's admission of using torture. Here's one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637293.stm
-
from my understanding, toronto reader
israel *used* to torture, but stopped it when it gave no good information. (i have sympathy with them during the stresses of the intifada since there were bombings practically every day and the public demanded results). that being said, while it is illegal, perhaps it is still being used (in chicago, it was routine to beat confessions out of prisoners, again illegal, but used (to ill effect, witness the recent moratorium on the death penalty)). perhaps this doesn't happen in canada, but i can assure you, if the french separatists had resorted to bombings, it CERTAINLY would have been resorted to - to the same ill effect, maybe, but it shows in blatant fashion the anger of the public. this is NOT an excuse for the U.S. which has had no domestic terrorism since 9/11.
when britain ruled the waves, it had "territoriality" meaning that british citizens charged with a crime in a colony would be tried in britain. it's the way it is. the strongest *does* rule, whether it pisses people off or not. that's the only "exceptionalism" worth the name. would YOU like to be ruled by the wigs in belgium or the hague? no one does.