It seems that some in the Republican party have finally found something outside of your bedroom that they think the goverment can regulate effectively.
If you guess the credit card industry, you guessed wrong. Insurance industry? Wrong. CAFE standards? Wrong. What then could they be talking about? Hold on to your hats.
“Rendition” is where the United States hands over to other powers prisoners under its control in order that they may be interrogated in manners not consonant with American law; in short, we do it so that we can get information out of people who will not voluntarily talk to us after non-invasive means have been exhausted. This article in The Weekly Standard comes out against the practice; the problem being, in the view of the author (Reuel Marc Gerecht) that our failure to clearly delineate when and where we will apply stern interrogation measures leaves us vulnerable on both practical and moral grounds.
Torture leaves us ‘vulnerable’ on moral grounds. Who would have thunk it? Clearly, the way to firm up this ‘vulnerable’ moral ground is to ‘clearly delineate’ when we will use ‘stern interrogation methods.’
While I grant that there should be clear rules for when torture may be used, I disagree that we shouldn’t be transferring prisoners into the custody of other nations to force information out of them. On purely practical grounds, a Jordanian interrogator is more likely to get at the truth of the matter in interrogating an Arab terror suspect than we are because he’s native to the language and culture. Lots of nuances can be missed by someone who isn’t entirely immersed in the culture of the prisoner.
Or, on purely practical grounds, we could stop kicking linguists out of the military because they are gay. You are right, torture is easier.
I know I have exposed myself as a pinko communist liberal in the last few months, so you ‘good’ Republicans can just ignore this post. The rest of you- well, you can join me in a collective vomit session.
Torture- it is ok- if we regulate it. Really, it is for the kids.
Let’s hope the policy makers in DC don’t share these sentiments.
WTF is wrong with people?
Mike Jones
Well, one thing wrong is that they seem to be buying into the (very unlikely) notion that torture will allow us to “get at the truth”. When you start from faulty premises, you can end up just about anywhere.
Parker
I don’t think you’ve turned pinko – but you do seem unhappy, and it sometimes seems to make your writing less compelling.
Just a thought – will be wishing you well.
KC
John, you’re not being ‘pinko,’ you’re just being rational. I read your site because of it.
Katherine
“Let’s hope the policy makers in DC don’t share these sentiments”
Well, they manifestly either do, or are just amazingly, willfully blind to the obvious fact that the prisoners we render are getting tortured.
Clinton started this one, but as far as I can tell we did at least manage not to do innocent people back then.
Obligatory plug: if you oppose sending to people to torture in Egypt, Syria, and Uzbekistan please ask your Senators to cosponsor S. 654, the 2005 Convention Against Torture Implementation Act, and your Congressman to cosponsor H.R. 952, the Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act. You can look up the bill text here
BumperStickerist
~ sigh ~
The ‘linguists booted for being teh gay’ is perhaps the biggest non-story that gets played up as being a story – I say this as a graduate of the Defense Language Institute – Foreign Language Center (DLI-FLC) located at the Presidio in Monterey, California (which is not the Presidio near the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco)
The soldiers in question in one of the stories were students – students at DLI don’t necessarily make it to the end of the coruse.
Korean (Which was my language) had a 60-70% wash-out rate (yes, wash-out) and Arabic was at the time around 40-50%. So, there’s some question about where in the course and whether those students would have passed – regardless of their gheyness. And that’s just the basic language course, there’s technical training after that, which can wash 1/3rd to 1/2 the remaining people out.
Secondly, and I say this at some cost to myself – learning Arabic at DLI-FLC isn’t some Laurence of Arabia type of deal – you end up learning a particular form of Arabic (modern) and there’s some follow-on training for particular dialects, but the vocab training on this stuff doesn’t make you fluent to any degree (which a quick read of the fluency equivalents in the Army would tell you)
You get a good grounding in ‘basic’ stuff, can listen in and get the gist of conversations – but you don’t come out of one year of DLI school in any kind of covert op, ‘let’s interrogate Ackbar in his native language’, you don’t even come out with a ‘let’s haggle with the person in the bazaar’ kind of fluency – you just sort of know when you’re being cussed at.
Look at it this way – when the bin Laden tape came out two years ago, they had three native speakers with doctorates listen to it looking for nuance and meaning ….
you think Army guys who’s ASVAB scores couldn’t get them into the Navy or Air Force (DLI is a multi-service post) are going to be cracker-jack linguists … after one year of training?
Not to mention that the people picked up for interrogation were from many different areas and dialects ..
which is to say there’s no way that a DLI student being booted is a mission critical loss. A decent linguist or interrogator needs more training and time in field.
Which is one big reason why I’m skeptical of that ‘Behind the Wire’ book with Sgt. Erik Saar.
The interviewers say ‘He graduated from DLI” and everybody goes ‘Ooooohhhhhhh’ … I’m thinking ‘h’uh?’ …
My questions for Saar:
“What class did you graduate?”
“What was your MOS .. were you an interrogator or a cryptologic linguist”
“What advanced training did you have?”
“What was your profiency rating?”
Libertine
Once upon a time America had a good reputation in the world because we stood for the rule of law. We didn’t wage wars of aggression, we were once part of the world community and the UN, and we didn’t do things like renditions/torture.
Am I saying that the US needs to consult with the rest of the world to get it’s ok when we protect our national security? Hell no!!! But as citizens we should expect our government to behave in a civilized manner…and not behave like the people who attacked us.
It is easy to talk about “morality and values”. But renditions and torture undermines what our government says and we become the international poster child of double standards. We talk the talk but refuse to walk the walk.
Stormy70
Throughout America’s history, anti-Americanism has run rampant. It is not a new phenomenon. I don’t give a rip about our “reputation” in corrupt, useless countries that make up the majority of the UN.
Are you suggesting we keep all these guys at Gitmo, and not send them to their country of origin? I thought torture actually accomplished very little, and people in the Armed Forces use better methods without resorting to physical torture. Why then should our policy be to outsource torture if it does not work? It would not make any sense. This Blogs for Bush guy does not equal the entire GOP, so why the hyperventilating over one random blog post? The only guy publicly supporting torture is Alan Dershowitz, a Democrat.
Kimmitt
The only guy publicly supporting torture is Alan Dershowitz, a Democrat.
What color is the sky on your planet?
Libertine
If Alan Derschowitz is supporting torture, he is absolutely wrong Stormy70.
Renditions are kidknappings and after we take the people to countries which can use torture. I think it is very naive to think that there aren’t some heinous techniques being used to interrogate the detainees.
I know the people being grabbed are foreign nationals but most of the world (the US included, up to this point) believes in the legal concept of Habeus Corpus…and even our right of center SCOTUS has ruled against Bush on the Gitmo (and other) detainees.
As far as the UN goes…you’ll probably love it if Bolton is confirmed, LOL!!! But Bush, Sr., Reagen, Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower all worked with the effectively with UN. But this Republican president (and group of neocons) want to go it alone. I am thinking pushing friends away and offending other countries isn’t helping our cause in the “War on Terrorism”. Isn’t that what is supposedly going on?
Katherine
One needn’t assume. There are specific, credible allegations of torture from about 15 people.
space
What’s disappointing about Gerecht’s statement (although I admit I didn’t read the original quote, maybe he’s being misquoted) is that he has always displayed an ability to cut through the b.s. and analyze the situation.
Case in point is his pre-9/11 take on why the U.S. couldn’t penetrate Al Qaeda. It answers the question of why John Walker Lindh could penetrate the organization and the CIA couldn’t before anyone had ever heard of Lindh.
My question is this: Given the rather shitty state of American human intelligence in the region (in other words, there is a rather long laundry list of things we need to improve), why on Earth would people rush to defend a practice that AT BEST has marginal value and has the negative effect of undermining America’s (fast diminishing) reputation as a defender of human rights? Stormy 70 may wish to sweep that problem under the rug by pretending that it is only the “corrupt” countries of “the U.N.” that care, but that is b.s. Unless you don’t care about the U.S.’s reputation with ANYONE, terrorism is a stupid practice to engage in.
I also find Bumper Stickerist’s remarks rather foolish. The point isn’t whether the linguists who were booted were top quality. That doesn’t matter. What matters is that the were booted for a stupid and bigoted reason that has made America less safe.
The U.S. doesn’t have the luxury of kicking out linguists for any reason, even if 90% of them would wash out. We are still fighting 2 fucking wars where such training, even if not of an ideal level, could potentially be very useful. Can you say that no lives could have been saved in Iraq over the past 2 years if we had a few extra, marginally educated, gay Arab linguists?
TM Lutas
Rendition is justified if there is a practice (or more than one) that is:
1. Illegal under US law
2. Not immoral.
3. Effective in the war on terror
I’m not really sure what the heck is going on in rendition cases in reality but I do know of at least one practice that meets this three-fold test, religious conversion.
The US, due to the 1st amendment can’t engage in spiritual warfare designed to change captives’ religious beliefs. The combination of our precedent based legal system and our religious variability would make any introduction of religious indoctrination by government pure poison for us. Thus all this sort of activity is rightly illegal.
At the same time, there is no moral objection to it. There’s at least one jurist in Yemen that engages in exactly this sort of conversion, saying that prisoners would go free if they converted him but would give information on Al Queda if he converted them. I can’t recall anybody protesting when he was written up in the western media.
That judge’s experience also seems to provide significant useful intelligence on Al Queda. I don’t recall anybody challenging that idea either.
So, illegal for good reason, moral, and effective, if rendition can pass that three-fold test, I support it. At the very least, the existence of proper rendition possibilities should make condemnation of rendition be nuanced and look at the actual facts of what is going on.
Is rendition producing koranic debating societies in the basements of Syrian intelligence? I doubt it. That likely reality is an argument for reform instead of the cartoonish calls to end all rendition.
Gary Farber
Don’t you just admire the beautiful euphemism of “stern interrogation measures,” though? Who would mind those? (Even they they include ramming a broomstick up the ass, waterboarding, and ripping out fingernails — that’s just being “stern.” A variant of “firm interrogation,” no doubt, and asking “harsh questions.”)
Stormy70
The UN is useless. I have no repspect for an organization that ripped off the Iraqi people, and raped their way through Africa. It is now a criminal enterprise, and the US should get the hell out of it.
I think rendition is wrong, as well as torture. My post questioned why it should be policy, since most people agree that it is ineffective. I don’t care if these detainees at Gitmo are having a tough time of it mentally. I am sure the women and children they raped and tortured in Afghanistan feel sorry for their mental anguish.. These are not American citizens, they are enemies, and they would sooner kill me than look at me. I am a dirty infidel pig in their eyes. Sorry, my sympathy for Islamic Fundamentalists are zero.
Christie S.
TM, thanks for the memory jog regarding the Yemeni judge debating the Koran with fighters. One article can be found here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0204/p01s04-wome.html
I found that fascinating. Why can’t we do this instead of torture by the favorite flavor of the day? Instead of shipping them to torture camps, send them to their own religious leaders. No indoctrination here, as I see it. They already belong to the religion.
BumperStickerist
also find Bumper Stickerist’s remarks rather foolish. The point isn’t whether the linguists who were booted were top quality. That doesn’t matter. What matters is that the were booted for a stupid and bigoted reason that has made America less safe.
ummmm … yeah.
Because the military – it’s all about social experimentation.
:eyeroll
I guess informing the ignorant is ‘foolish’ … you’re welcome to become a bit familiar with DLI-FLC, the training, competencies, and expectations on your own … the school wasn’t easy, it was intense, but you do not come out of DLI school in any position to chat away with terrorists or suspected terrorists.
For Basic Arabic, think ‘Junior High French Class’ and a field trip to Montreal … you can read the signs, ask around, and sorta/kinda understand, but you’re not going to get all chatty with the locals.
The notion that these trainees were useful linguists is one taken at face value by the likes of, well, you – for one.
John, for two.
If you’re going to get all wrapped up in the loss of potential, then we can .. well, hell, that opens up a bunch of topics.
Sorry, though, for being ‘foolish’
… the gays/military is a bad policy – imo.
But it’s not a ‘War on Terror’ kind of problem.
TM Lutas
Christie S. – We don’t do that kind of thing because its
1. Blatantly unconstitutional
2. It would be much more difficult for us to pull off than it would be for a country filled with muslim jurists
3. Would provoke real pressures on US society regarding religious freedom in ways that are very unhealthy.
All – Regarding the whole “gay translator” beef, bouncing homosexuals was always about either being a threat to discipline or a threat to security. If there’s anybody who is likely to be homosexual blackmail bait, it’s anybody seriously dealing with highly anti-gay cultures like, oh arabic translators.
I don’t know how many of these gay translators were ethnically arabic but that would make it an even worse risk.
Christie S.
TM, you said:
“Christie S. – We don’t do that kind of thing because its
1. Blatantly unconstitutional
2. It would be much more difficult for us to pull off than it would be for a country filled with muslim jurists
3. Would provoke real pressures on US society regarding religious freedom in ways that are very unhealthy.”
Why? If we can fly them out to be tortured, why can’t we send them to the Yemeni judge for debate? Why is that unconstitutional? I don’t mean to be a ditz on this, but I don’t see why it would be unconstitutional.
If they’re (the detainees) Muslim and we’re sending them to speak to Muslims, to debate Koranic dogma where’s the religious beef? The article I referenced was pretty specific. The success rate of that cleric is pretty damned good. Several of these people have been moved to tell the authorities where hideouts and weapons stashes were.
::shrug:: Maybe my brain’s been too fogged with NyQuil today. I’ll look over this tomorrow and it may make more sense to me.
Thanks for the response, TM.