Letters to the Editor
-
US Criminal Code Title 18 Chapter 113C - Torture
I'm sorry, in my last post I didn't make clear that George Bush said that torture was defined in US Criminal Code. That was the quote I was refering to.
Here it is again:
===========================================
For those of you who don't know what torture is, here is the definition referred to by George Bush recently:
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
It goes into more depth on the definitions of pain and suffering, but it's what any moral American would expect.
Here's a link
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
===========================================
-
Rendition, et al.
What I find particularly disturbing about this case of rendition is that it is symptomatic of an accepted policy of opinion deciding guilt or innocence, rather than adjudication. I do not understand how so many agencies within the U.S. government are allowed to bypass the basic tenants of traditional English law.
We should also consider the legality of military attacks on civilian populations. Many times we have read about U.S. missile attacks against a suspected terrorist holding up in a housing complex. Apparently others in the housing complex have no rights other than the right to die. Neither does the suspected terrorist, who many times is not a terrorist. How does the qualification “suspected” roll over into being “confirmed” and “convicted”?
We have become an authoritarian regime where suspicion alone equates to guilt. It’s documented as part of Chaney’s 1% solution. The law of the land has become the arbitration of the powerful. This affects every citizen of this country.
-
ticking time bombs
It's this simple: Torture is inhumane and illegal. Period. Rendition,extraordinary or otherwise,is kidnapping and illegal. Period.
What is more, there is no ticking time bomb. There never has been a ticking time bomb. It's as much a fantasy as pigs with wings.
-
@Elephantman
"When did we start engaging in rendition?", then the answer to that question is: "During the Clinton Administration."
Sorry -- that's not the answer you all wanted to hear, was it?
Whether that was the answer we wanted to hear or not, it was exactly the answer we expected to hear, given in exactly the manner we expected, from the resident Republican troll. No links, no evidence for the charge? Check. An implication that naming Clinton as a engaging in rendition provides some kind of justification for Bush to do the same? Check.
-
thanks Alia Malek and Sweetcakes
it's rare that i find myself asking "but what if he's not guilty?" - and imagine myself in the same position.
for the rest, think about why the U.S. decides to send these people to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, and Uzbekistan - along with many other places - BUT not Israel! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition -
@ Nulla Sallus
who writes "All the time we are treated to this post Soviet inanity that somehow Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, Egypt are themselves paragons of righteous anti western anti Zionist wonder, freedom and multiculturalism fighting the good fight against those nasty nasty people called "Israelis". When did we become like Syria? I would think you'd be cheering."
What is your basis for making this assumption about a cross-section of people you don't know simply because they've posted to a "liberal" letters thread? I'm liberal, progressive, pro-Israel, and don't have a clue what you're talking about.
And I'm a 14th generation white American, and this story makes my blood run cold with fear. Simply, this has been allowed to happen and to go without punishment because the bulk of Americans think it won't happen to them, only to someone else.
-
excellent, painful article
It was hard to read this piece, but I'm grateful Alia Malek wrote it. Because of her lived experience with the difference between the Syrian state surveillance and US rule of law, her perspective on the scary convergence is all the more striking.
What is most troubling is the possibility that US rule of law has *always* operated through what Giorgio Agamben calls the rule of exception: that is, society operates through rule of law except where those who control the levers of power decide to exclude certain groups (usually racial) from that domain. So the real souce of power is not in law but in the ability to selectively suspend law. Malek describes one dramatic site where you can see someone slip into the void that is legal exception.
-
Rendition
A government that can plan and perpetrate the atrocities of 9/11 which killed 3,000 innocent people will have no qualms about sending people to Syria to be tortured. If you doubt this, I suggest you read David Ray Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 debunking : an answer to Popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory". The American government is a puppet show designed to distract us from the real decision makers - the banks and corporations, who have profited enormously from the Iraq war and from lending money at interest to the government. The Iraq war has already cost the average American family $20,000. This is nothing new. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson said
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominate men. I have unwittingly betrayed my country." — President Woodrow Wilson, 1916
-
Could Malek Publish in Syria?
Our country was attacked by 19 Arabs on 9/11, causing vast carnage. Unlike the Clinton adminstration--which reacted with diffidence and fake attacks in response to bombings of embassies in Africa and the USS Cole--Bush attacked the perpetrators with zeal. Governmental zeal must be scrutinized. It was inevitable that in a war against shadowy murderers, mistakes would be made. The alternative was to accept, like Clinton, endless condolences. Most Americans, at least initially, preferred zealous response, as evidenced in the 2004 elections. If Ms.Malek does not understand that--unlike Syria--we have independent judicial and legislative branches, reviewing courts and the opportunity to vote the government out of office, she is not qualified to acts as a journalist or lawyer. Could her rant have been published in Syria? The ridicule of the President's name shows a lot about the mental level of many progressives. Nulla is onto something: do the Malek supporters criticize judicial repression in Cuba?