CIA Prisoner Camps in Europe...
The story of the possibility of secret CIA prisoner camps in Europe isn't set to go away just yet. The flights in question have definitely been confirmed, these are now beyond reasonable doubt. This of course still doesn't prove the existence of the camps or the fact that illegal interrogation techniques are being used there.But the extremely lawyered wording used by both Straw and Condi leaves a lot of doubt in many people's minds.
Condi is currently visiting Germany and talks with Angela Merkel are unlikely to rock the boat. Merkel is a conservative and has indicated a desire to improve German-US relationships.
But new revelations are likely to prompt further questions about the fate of these prisoners:
Before she left the US, Ms Rice admitted that terror suspects were flown abroad for interrogation but denied they were tortured.
She said suspects were moved by plane under a process known as rendition, and that this was "a lawful weapon".
A leading US-based human rights group accused Ms Rice of seeking to "mischaracterise" the true nature of rendition.
"Secretary Rice made extra-legal rendition sound like just another form of extradition," said Tom Malinowski, a Human Rights Watch official in Washington.
"In fact, it's a form of kidnapping and 'disappearing' someone entirely outside the law."
Despite a large slice of the British general public demanding clarification of what the UK flights actually mean, there is no real shortage of people ready to defend questionable, possibly illegal practices, in the name of "terror fighting". See this here online BBC survey,
Do you agree with US terror policies?
Keywords: CIA, CIA camps, terror, Guantanamo, Europe
posted by Gert @ 4:00 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Well, the wording used by both Straw and that US slag, leave absolutely NO doubt in my mind. Nor, I might add, in the minds of an awful lot of others people I know.
Personally I prefer further corroboration before I hurl the grave allegation of torture at someone but it can't be denied there's some strange "goings on"...
Gert and Richard,
Too bad the two of you don't put this kind of energy and attention on the victims of Terrorism.
"US slag?" Hmmmm - nice one, mate.
Timmer:
It's typical of you to accuse people of not caring about the victims of terrorism, simply because they have serious doubts about how the "war on terror" is being fought.
I guess, to you the plane passenger with bipolar disorder that was shot 2 days ago on an AA flight, is just collateral damage. To me that may well be true but it's worth looking into what happened, as this guy clearly wasn't a terrorist...
Gert -
My point is that it is very difficult to find a Liberal, or Democrat of any stripe, that gives equal time to condemning the Terrorist/Insurgent that you give to our own folks. Does this not seem strange to you?
On my take of that shooting incident, you guessed wrong Gert (but you seem to get me wrong alot ;-). OF COURSE there should be an investigation, and I am also curious that no passenger can be found to verify that this guy claimed to have a bomb.
But ask yourself Gert - if this man did in fact claim to have explosives, what would you have the authorities do? Would you even be writing about the incident, or decry this man's actions?
Timmer:
You wrote:
My point is that it is very difficult to find a Liberal, or Democrat of any stripe, that gives equal time to condemning the Terrorist/Insurgent that you give to our own folks. Does this not seem strange to you?
My reply:
No it doesn't. In this debate I leave condemning the terrorists/insurgents to you guys, as you're perfectly capable. I have little to add to that side of the debate. It's merely a matter of priorities.
You wrote:
But ask yourself Gert - if this man did in fact claim to have explosives, what would you have the authorities do? Would you even be writing about the incident, or decry this man's actions?
My reply:
I'm merely very suspicious about shoot-to-kill policies, as we have already one very tragic and stupid result from them here in the UK. I also believe that it's simplistic to assume that shooting to kill is more effective than shooting to immobilise. We have now at least two counts that prove otherwise.
You'd be mistaken if somehow you think I believe a suspect's rights are more important that catching the guilty and protecting the innocent: I believe they are equally important in a civil society, that's a matter of principle, otherwise we're on the slippery slope to mob rule and summary executions (to which all of us could fall victim) without charge, trial, conviction or sentencing.
There is often a call for "swift" justice in times of crisis: recently a farmer in Norfolk (Tony Martin) callously shot two fleeing, juvenile burglars in the back with an (illegally held) pump-action shot gun, killing one and disabling (for life) the other one. Despite this atrocity, the string-em-up press couldn't print fast enough: Martin had the right to defend his home ("an Englishman's home is his castle"). Yes, he did but not the right to murder...
Post a Comment
<< Home