Left I on the News

Outsourcing torture

Every blog reader and news hound has undoubtedly already seen the New York Times story which reveals that George Bush signed an executive order permitting the CIA to practice rendition without explicit, case-by-case approval. Several details in the article caught my eye, like this:

"The process, known as rendition, has been central in the government's efforts to disrupt terrorism, but has been bitterly criticized by human rights groups on grounds that the practice has violated the Bush administration's public pledge to provide safeguards against torture."

Quoting Jon Stewart, "Wha-a-a-a-a?" Rendition has been bitterly critized because it results in torture and is illegal, not because it "violated the Bush Administration's public pledge."

But it was the defense of the practice by the usual anonymous "senior United States official" that was really amusing:

"The official declined to be named but agreed to discuss the program to rebut the assertions that the United States used the program to secretly send people to other countries for the purpose of torture. The transfers were portrayed as an alternative to what American officials have said is the costly, manpower-intensive process of housing them in the United States or in American-run facilities in other countries."

It's a cost-cutting measure! Yeah, that's it! Could it be the name of this anonymous official was...Tommy Flanagan?

Getting serious again, think about why this official is making this bogus "cost-cutting" claim. It's because if not for the purpose of torture, there's only one possible reason to send a prisoner to another country, and that's if they're a wanted criminal in that country, in which case what's happening is called "extradition", not "rendition", and you don't need special secret executive orders to carry it out.

Actually that's not true, there is actually another possible reason to ship someone like Maher Arar out of the country other than torture, and to be honest I suspect it's the main reason in at least some cases. And that is that the U.S. can only handle so many Jose Padilla cases. Indefinite detention without charges is illegal in the United States (and most places), which is why the U.S. created the artificial "under U.S. control but not in the U.S. and subject to U.S. laws" Guantanamo prison in the first place. And even the prisoners seized overseas and imprisoned in Guantanamo have had at least some success in the courts. Sending prisoners to other countries, and never acknowledging their existence or the fact that they were originally under the control of the U.S., is the best way to make sure they are totally outside the purview of American courts. And if there is any reason people were subject to rendition other than the desire/"need" to torture them to extract information, I would guess it is this, and not "cost-cutting", that is it. But it wouldn't do for the pathological liars of the Administration to admit that, any more than to admit to complicity in torture.