This was brought up in CSI-Miami last night. I've read the articles on Maher Arar and the rumors are running rampant.
Is the United States out-sourcing the torture of its detainees?
Many of the people held in Guantanamo are citizens of countries where torture is standard police procedure. To gather information on our War on Terrorism, we could deport those accused to their home countries and allow thier government to torture them.
This keeps Uncle Sam's hands clean.
Heck, we allow the torture of just a few, and we scare the rest into giving us info that may stop the next 9/11.
This reasoning scares me.
We point to Saddam's torture chambers and say to the world, "See, didn't we do a good thing getting rid of him." Then we promote the use of the same methods against people we believe are our enemies.
Does anyone else find this deeply wrong?
Does anyone believe that the possibility of stopping an act of terrorism is worth the pain and suffering of torturing others, and not only people we know are guilty of major crimes, but those we suspect are guilty?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I know we send a lot of 'em to Egypt.
AJ
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think sending them with an understanding that they will be tortured is wrong. But if that means never sending them home ever... that doesn't seem right either.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think the implications are there, as well, for a way to rehabilitate prisoners.
[ December 02, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Sounds workable to me, Saxon.
Nonetheless, I'm not that sure I have a problem with outsourcing the torture. Truthfully, I'm not sure I have a problem with doing it ourselves.
These are people who were captured in combat. We may not know exactly what crimes they were guilty of, but they are highly unlikely to be totally innocent.
Governments like Saddam's, by contrast, torture whoever opposes them, however benign that opposition might be. To me, there's a difference there.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Well, Macc, it's good to know that you really don't have any problems with American soldiers being tortured. Heck, they're soldiers, they probably aren't innocent. Sorry Black Fox, you had it coming.
No. No wait. That's completely disgusting and wrong. Let's leave all the moral issues aside and say one thing, "torture doesn't work." The amount of false confessions you get is staggaring. It wouldn't help.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Whoa, Bob, don't be so negative.
After all, the Spanish Inquisition tortured the people they thought to be guilty (or very unlikely to be innocent), and look how effective they were at finding people who consorted with the Devil! Clearly, those people were unlikely to have been innocent in the first place if they were being questioned by the Inquisition at all.
And yes, Dan, we do send prisoners to be tortured in other, largely Mid-Eastern countries. I'd link if I could remember where I read up on this...
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Yeah, but the Spanish Inquisition was so effective because of one key reason: Surprise. Surprise and fear. Ok, two key reasons. Surprise, fear and ruthless efficiency. Wait. Ok, three key reasons. Look, the point is that nobody suspects the Spanish Inquisition. America, on the other hand, everybody suspects America these days.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
All I'm saying is it seems for the last two years people have been complaining that we have no plan of sending them home, so what are we supposed to do with them? By the way, I didn't go to the post link because I didn't feel like filling out the form. So maybe my views are grotesquely skewed.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I saw an interview with some spokesman for the military (yeah, specific I know) basically admitting the outsourcing of torture.
It went along the lines of 'well, there's certain things that we can't do, but some of our allies are willing to help us out with our more stubborn prisoners'.
I'll look for the actual evidence behind this when I'm more awake - until then you can just take my word for it.
(Edit: I've just re-read Dan's initial post. My recollection of the interview I saw was that prisoners are not just being sent to their home countries where torture may occur, but rather to other countries that are eager to please the US. So in that case the 'we have to send them home' justification doesn't apply)
[ December 03, 2003, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
This topic makes little baby Jesus cry.
Posted by The Spanish Inquisition (Member # 4440) on :
See, the bad thing about that damn Python movie was that afterwards, every-freaking-one was expecting us.
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Unsurprising; your member number is very unlucky.
Posted by The Spanish Inquisition (Member # 4440) on :
Maybe in Asia, but it's pretty lucky in the world of Christianity.
I believe our member number was chosen by God herself.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, I disagree with sending the somewhere not their home in order for them to be tortured. And I think it's too bad they can't be release. Can't we put a parole tracking device of some kind on their persons? I mean, from a strict usefulness point of view... if we are denying them any kind of rights anyway... that seems the best way to get terrorist info from them. :puts up tomato umbrella:
But it would be a good premise for a sci fi story.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pooka, this is not about sending them home.
This is about sending them to be tortured.
This is about agreements between our government and others that says, "Please torture these people and we'll send you money."
Most of the people in Guantanamo can be sent home without facing torture, though some would end up in prison (and face each countries inherant torture involved with that). Others would be sent home to Afghanistan and countries where they would be treated like hero's.
My question is whether we should condone our governments use of Torture for Hire.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No. If we don't have the stomach/loose ethics to do it ourselves, sending it out to be done elsewhere is dishonerable, dishonest, and weenie.
quote:The most effective way to gather intelligence and thwart terrorism can also be a direct route into morally repugnant terrain. A survey of the landscape of persuasion
It includes how-to's - just in case someone needs some ideas of how to psychologically grill your younger brother. I do NOT encourage duct tape.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Actually Dan, I don't think the story you linked to really has a lot to do with the subject you are talking about. The US doesn't get along with Syria terribly well. As far as I know they aren't one of the countries we "trust" with our exported torturing. Baby Bush has put them pretty close to the "Axis of Evil" though not entirely calling them rogue.
quote: In a Nov. 7 speech, President Bush said Syria has left its people "a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin." Spokesmen at the Justice Department and the CIA declined to comment on why they believed the Syrian assurances to be credible.
The guy that was getting deported to Syria could have just as easily been deported to Canada since he had dual citizenship. That is the issue here. It seemed to me that he thought he would get tortured in Syria for ticking the Syrian authorities off somehow. It does not appear that the Syrian authorities torturing him has anything necessarily to do with the reason he was being held here.
The people that are getting tortured under tacit approval by the US, are people who for the most part have never set foot on US soil. This is different. There is nothing prohibiting this guy,(except maybe the Syrian government) from stepping off the plane we put him on to Syria and getting onto another one headed for Canada. He is a Syrian citizen and if the Syrians have issues with him it isn't necessarily our problem.
The one caveat is here:
quote: U.S. law strictly prohibits sending people -- even on national security grounds -- to a country where it is likely they will be tortured. Yesterday, a Justice Department spokesman confirmed that the Syrian assurances allowed them to legally send Arar to Syria.
Also this guy appears to be alive and well enough to be complaining about his treatment so my guess is that he wasn't actually tortured further when they shipped him off.
AJ
(Note I'm not saying that I approve of torture outsourcing, but I don't think the situation you picked actually applies)
AJ
[ December 03, 2003, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The above link was just to explain who Maher Arar was, not to go into who was doing our torturing.
I did not have any links or proof that we were doing this, just rumors.
I do have Mr. Arar's account of what happened. Although I cannot speak for the legitamacy of this newspaper, I did read the same thing, Mr. Arar's story, in Yahoo News a few weeks ago. I just can't find it anymore.
I beieve this is a big story in Canada, but nothing seems to be being written about it in the US. I find that disturbing as well. If his story is true, it would make me disgusted with everyone involved.
There are enough people investigating to determine if it is true or not.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)