Today there have been further reports of Condoleezza Rice's defence of the 'extraordinary renditions' policy.
It's a sad fact that these days, when I hear a phrase like "The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture", I don't think "Oh, well that's OK then"... I think "What interpretation of that phrase would be consistent with detainees being tortured?". For instance, what if detainees are transported from one country to another for the purpose of removing them from effective legal accountability... and are then tortured? Doctors don't administer lethal doses of morphine for the purpose of killing patients; they do it for the purpose of pain relief. The patient dies just the same.
I do have a level of respect for Ms Rice, and I am sure European leaders such as Angela Merkel do too... but personal respect cannot and should not be made to substitute for political and legal transparency in the treatment of detainees. Such transparency is vital for many reasons:
--- First, the anti-terrorist enforcement effort is an international one and depends on international co-operation. It is appropriate that international conventions, and not only national legislation, should be applied to the treatment of detainees;
--- Second, there are too many factors in this which are subjective and disputed: the 'precise definition' (!) of torture, the definition and status of 'unlawful combatants', the legal channels open to those detained indefinitely, and so on;
--- Finally, there is the over-arching point that we cannot defend democracy by ditching its principles under a doctrine of 'the means justifying the end'. Ms Rice cites cases such as Carlos 'The Jackal' as previous instances where 'rendition' has been used and condoned.
The difference (which she neglected to mention) between that case and what appears to be happening now on a mass and systematic scale, is that Carlos was brought to court and tried. She also stresses the respect the US places on the sovereignty of other countries. This sits uneasily with, for instance, events such as the extra-judicial killing of six Al Qaeda suspects in the Yemen, using a rocket attack from an unmanned aerial 'drone'; an episode which demonstrated opportunism over and above any consideration of legality or sovereignty.
It could be that the 'renditions' policy is just, legal and appropriate. I'm still open to convincing... but I'm certainly not convinced yet.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}