Just to make things clear. The United States now has a policy, referred to euphemistically as simply “rendition,” of flying terror suspects to foreign countries to torture them.
Even though it doesn’t work.
Many of the countries in which the torture is carried out are in Eastern Europe. Indeed, we have adopted a great deal of the old apparatus of Soviet imperialism.
It is often the case that the people being tortured are completely innocent.
“They picked up the wrong people, who had no information. In many, many cases there was only some vague association” with terrorism, one CIA officer said.”
There was a time, not too long ago, when we thought we had evolved beyond such behavior. Apparently not.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
Outrageous…I am still waiting for so-called moderate Republicans to stage any kind of protest, one wonders if they all want to be associated with these sort of things.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Come on guys, what you write is such a complete nonsense.
First of all, it is highly uncertain whether any of these particular secret prisons exist. All official data both from the US as well as Eastern Europe indicate that they do not exist. But of course, if they do, I won’t be surprised.
Second, it is definitely not “often” that the people who are dealt with in this (generalized) fashion are innocent. Errors always occur but most of these people are upgefucked terrorists and killers that deserve the worst treatment one can imagine. Moreover, this treatment is often necessary to get the information about their fellow thugs and other important data. I certainly think that it is worth to give a hard time to a seemingly innocent graduate of whatever school when 50 other terrorists are effectively neutralized and identified.
As a citizen of a country that is a member of NATO, I expect at least someone in NATO to do their job correctly. It is unfortunately hard to expect this thing from most of the countries in Europe and elsewhere because their reasoning – and quality of their work – often resembles your pathetic comments.
The U.S. is probably the only civilized country today that is ready to invest money and other things into the safety of the Western civilization, and I admire this country and its government for their precious job. Moshe (and Sean, of course), what you are saying is really painful. What you’re writing essentially implies that you are fighting this war on terror with the opposite side than I am. If you were honest, you would first of all thank everyone for treating you so nicely with all the hyperstandard human rights and so forth. If this was were real, you may very well follow your fellow co-warriors.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:03 pm
If this was -> If this war
December 4th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Lubos, I don’t want to be drawn to a long debate over this, there are more interesting things to do. Let me emphasize though that the question is not whether or not one supports terror, but whether this way of fighting it is 1. effective and 2. cost effective (and I am not talking about money here). My personal answer is 1. maybe, probably not and 2. definitely not. Let us save our energy to physics.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
I’m sorry if this sounds nasty, but I think immigrants with no concept of human rights who come in not as refugees or entry-level workers, but are part of the so-called “elite” pose a threat to the traditions of this country, just as much as some of the currently powerful do.
December 4th, 2005 at 7:01 pm
Dear Moshe, indeed, I would also recommend us and you in particular to save your energy for other things and avoid comments about questions that you have no idea about – such as war strategy.
Dear X, I’ve already learned pretty well that anonymous people like you are virtually never Americans. Aren’t you the 30-kilogram Chinese student from University of Delaware who has sent me 150 threats to kill me and who has also proposed that all immigrants should be removed from the U.S.? If you are, this may gonna be your last posting outside the jail.
December 4th, 2005 at 7:04 pm
No threats or name-calling, please. Subsequent inappropriate comments will be deleted without notice.
December 4th, 2005 at 7:20 pm
Hey, oh Great Motl of Infinite Wisdom, assuming for the sake of argument that torture is an effective means of information extraction (highly debatable, but I did say “assuming”) don’t you think that it would be
1) more honest (a quality which your post implies that you value) to have a clearly stated policy which says so and regulates the use of torture, on US territory itself, instead of playing these international hide-and-seek games; and
2) more cost-effective, too (no need to maintain foreign bases just for the sake of having an extra-jurisdicial limbo where anything goes, no flying suspects back and forth, no dealing and wheeling with foreign “intelligence” officers doing the dirty work); and
3) more effective, since an officially stated and regulated policy would remove the element of amateurism and arbitrariness which has repeatedly been shining through in reports on this matter? You know, things like beating somebody senseless and then leaving him chained outdoors, in Afghan winter, only to find he froze to death when you decide to check on him a few hours later. I have little doubt that such exemplary work may give those doing it the odd sadistic kick to get them through an otherwise dreary day, but as far as information retrieval is concerned, it doesn’t exactly strike me as the most brilliant of tactics. Perhaps you’ve heard, dead men tend to be not very talkative.
I mean, come on, if you want to be the Empire and play Darth Vader, who is a humble Dissident to say otherwise? But at least do it properly!
December 4th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Lubos:
This simply doesn’t work in democratic countries. In a police state like, say, Stalin’s Russia or in Iraq under Saddam this did work. Also, in many cases the persons are innocent. One of the reasons why the US is doing this is because they don’t have sufficient evidence that would warrant further investigation within the rules of the law.
Even in ”normal” criminal cases, many of the persons being suspected are not prosecuted. Some fraction of prosecuted people are acquitted. Some fraction of convicted people have their sentences overturned on appeal. And then there are people who are innocent but still in jail.
The security in the US depends on support for terrorist action. Because almost no Americans support terrorism, the US is safe. But if large numbers of foreigners are mistreated as a result of US actions, then someone someday may want to take revenge.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:20 pm
this is about three things:
a government, that of the United States, which believes it has Divine Destiny on its side and perceives it has “won” the Cold War, making itself the dominant empire in the same way Rome was over Carthage. this means it is imperial. this means it thinks, whether in the words of the Abu Ghraib VP Cheney or in the guise of Condi Rice, everyone must suck up to it. this is justified by phrases like “We spent the Soviet Union into the ground”, failing to realize that the only reason extravagant expenditures for defense were possible was because of the subsidy provided by overseas institutions and people buying USA government debt.
a government, that of the United States, which believes that the fear and anger resulting from the attacks of 11th September, as communicated to it by its citizens, is sufficient cause to suspend liberties and take “extraordinary measures” such as Abu Ghraib and probable secret prisons in Europe are examples. doing so, of course, sets aside the pride of democratic countries, the courts and jury trials, as means of determinining truth. doing so, of course, is entirely coincident with techniques used by kings of England, czars of Russia, and advisors of Austria, as well as Saddam Hussein himself, a privilege of convenience this government embraces because, well, it can. this fails to realize that the impression this gives is simply an extension of American jingoism, in particular, prejudice as an offensive Pat Robertson-style Christian bastion which deplores any non-Christian culture or religion, especially Islam.
a government, that of the United States, which is run by cowards, both Republican and Democratic. for, if they really believed their own bluster and propaganda, would deploy and use nuclear devices to contain what they perceive to be genuine threats to the security of the United States, or so they say. they don’t, so these folks haven’t any balls. nor do they believe their own press.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
In response to LM:
“Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein.”
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
—
Terror is a strategy.
If we win this “war on terror” by using their techniques and strategies we have lost it by definition. If you deny our right to scrutinize the way we fight this war in open public debate you are denying our most potent weapon against oppression and the dangers that we face from within.
In more concrete terms, the strategies of the US are failing, terrorism is on the rise globally, al Quaeda has more members then ever. The Iraq war was a costly diversion of ressources that has created a vast amount of potential recruits for terrorists.
Even more specifically, the CIA in particular appears to be way out of hand (not a first historically) with an administration that shows no signs of ensuring proper procedure within, and possibly even presuring in ideological directions.
These countries you are charging with doing nothing against terrorists are in fact those who have had experience with their own terrorism in the past, and have succesfully faught it (RAF, IRA, ETA). Yet the US administration is refusing to learn from this lessons.
You are a scientist. Please adjust your thinking to the actual evidence that is there.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:27 pm
Hey Lubos, tell that to Maher Arar.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
I think it possibly useful to point out that there is real evidence to believe that most Americans really don’t care that torture happens. Torture is portrayed positively on television: Alias, E-Ring, and Navy: NCIS. It’s not like there’s a Mother’s against Torture on TV organization out there bemoaning primetime TV. A reasonable conclusion…Americans are OK with torture.
I’ll avoid a long diatribe here…see my blog (post of 11/21) for more details.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
Someone wrote: “Even in ”normal” criminal cases, many of the persons being suspected are not prosecuted.”
These are not normal criminal cases. These are urgent and very special cases that potentially threaten thousands of lives and they’re examples of the criminals for whom the Patriot Act was designed.
What you seem to say is that these terrorist suspects should have more extensive human rights than regular criminal suspects. This is unacceptable and incompatible with the current law, as of September 2001 – December 2005. Of course that they have lower rights and the authorities have extended rights and tools to deal with them.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
Just some information for this discussion:
The UN convention against torture is part of international law.
The US has signed this convention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Convention_Against_Torture
The idea of international human rights was adopted in the 1940s after
the horrors of WW2.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
FP, thanks, it is useful information but one should also read it.
The text makes it clear that it is the countries on whose territories the torture takes place who are responsible according to this convention. Moreover, it is pretty difficult to find a particular article that has been violated.
When you say that the U.S. have signed this convention, you are being sloppy:
The United States ratified the Convention, but with one reservation: that “… nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States.” [1], footnote #11).
December 4th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Lubos:
I agree but the the important word here is ”potentially”. The US is currently holding peole like Sheik Khalid Mohammed who planned 9/11 but also people like Mr. Begg, who was held in Guantanamo but later released. Mr. Begg was just at the wrong place at the wrong time. It took a lot of pressure from Blair to get him released.
What is happening is that if someone is suspected he is hold captive because he could be a dangerous terrorist. Perhaps there is some indirect evidence that is consistent with that but he could also be innocent.
If we want keep these people captive then we become like Saddam and Stalin. Because what was the real reason why he killed 5000 Kurds? It wasn’t because he wanted to kill all Kurds, as we sometimes hear, but because some Kurds had collaborated with the Iranians. And Stalin didn’t want to take unnecessary risks either.
I think that we have to relativate the possibility of ”thousands of deaths”. It is one thing to have good intelligence about such a possibility. But to use that as a reason to keep people captive in Guantanamo bay, just because they were fighting for the Talaban is nonsense. I mean, why would you fight in Afghanistan (or Iraq for that matter) if you want to kill innocent people?
December 4th, 2005 at 9:20 pm
“violence is the last resort of the incompetent”
I. Asimov
December 5th, 2005 at 1:38 am
In response to LM-
” Second, it is definitely not “often” that the people who are dealt with in this (generalized) fashion are innocent. Errors always occur but most of these people are upgefucked terrorists and killers that deserve the worst treatment one can imagine.”
Even in normal situations within one’s country, where the police have enough time and freedom to investigate a case, it is many a time not clear whether those who are caught are actually the culprits. And in these cases of terrorism etc, where they summarily catch hundreds of people as suspects, how can you be so sure that most of them are not innocent?! Asking for openness seems quite reasonable by any standards. Or is it that your implicit faith in the present government is so strong that you find it sacrilegious to question anything it does?
December 5th, 2005 at 2:30 am
fh: One of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite thinkers. So the trick is to avoid becoming a monster if engaged in fighting monsters.
Consider Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis model; if the U.S. (at least nominally a democracy) is constantly fighting monsters then it must eventually evolve into a monster. Even crediting the People with constant vigilance, intelligence, and goodwill, America will move ever closer to monsterhood even if it does so in subliminally tiny steps. Because America perceives itself as the good guy, it will always be fighting the bad guys and so must inevitably become, contrary to its self-perceptions, a bad guy.
In any case, you can’t play by the rules and beat an opponent who doesn’t; sooner or later you throw away the rulebook – even if this means some bystanders might get hurt.
December 5th, 2005 at 2:44 am
1) Secret detention facilities do exist, though its not clear if they do in Europe or not. This has been known for a long time.
2) Charges of torture require evidence, and I remain unconvinced it exists outside of isolated incidents, often based solely on anecdotal evidence. The problem is we likely won’t ever know. But this doesn’t bother me, the public doesn’t have to *know* every detail do they? Sometimes you just have to trust the payed, American proffessionals working for governments we elect, much as the conspiracy nutters hate the idea.
3) ‘Torture’ is often defined differently by different people so it tends to be hard to figure out exactly what people are talking about.
4) The CIA is by law expected to uphold the Geneva conventions, even in situations where most people would support the use of the practise (ticking time bomb scenarios)
December 5th, 2005 at 2:52 am
Somewhat related, via the NY review of books:
http://hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/
December 5th, 2005 at 4:08 am
LM wrote:
Lubos, please explain how this footnote has any relevance to the present discussion? This isn’t a get-out clause for the US – it doesn’t constitute ‘having our fingers crossed’ while ratifying the Convention. Read the footnote again. It says, to paraphrase, “if the Convention tries to force the US to pass legislation or take action, but that legislation or action is prohibited by the Constitution, then in such a conflict the Constitution wins and the Convention loses.”
How does that apply to the Convention’s prohibition of torture? What part of “don’t torture prisoners” violates the US Constitution?
And by the way:
Says the guy who writes a 5 paragraph comment on the subject here, and then another 9 on his own site!
December 5th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Please let us note that indefinite detention of one declared an enemy combatant by the President, e.g., as in Guantanamo, with regular visits by the Red Cross, etc., is rather different from indefinite detention in secret prisons.
December 5th, 2005 at 8:01 am
Second, it may not be necessary or possible to tell the public certain things. Nevertheless, the principle of our government and democracy is that the three branches exercise oversight or act as checks on each other. The Adminstration needs to be accountable at least to, say, a select subcommittee in Congress.
December 5th, 2005 at 8:31 am
“Even in normal situations within one’s country, where the police have enough time and freedom to investigate a case, it is many a time not clear whether those who are caught are actually the culprits.”
I agree. This is why all reasonable observers among us realize that the errors simply can happen in every situation. I claim that errors are infrequent, and the fact that everything in the real world is imperfect does not mean that no one should do anything.
Concerning Hegel and Nietzsche – well, yes. Everyone in the real world is either dead; or a parasite being protected by someone else; or facing various threats and monsters. If you take Hegel and Nietzsche literally, then: yes, everyone is a monster. Darwin would take it as a definition of life.
For me it is important that there are many very different degrees of monsters, and this quantitative difference definitely matters to me. It probably does not matter to most of you.
“This isn’t a get-out clause for the US – it doesn’t constitute ‘having our fingers crossed’ while ratifying the Convention.”
Of course it is. It is a smart attitude of the U.S. that protect sovereignity of the United States and the priority of the basic U.S. laws. For example, if the U.S. constitution said that the citizens should be guaranteed a full protection against the foreign terrorists by the government, it would definitely make the whole UN convention irrelevant.
I think that these issues are rather important and the comments about saving time are pseudoarguments meant to annihilate inconvenient voices. Every citizen – regardless of her or his profession – who cares about these things has to sacrifice some time (during the weekend, in this case).
December 5th, 2005 at 9:54 am
LM wrote:
“… all reasonable observers among us realize that the errors simply can happen in every situation. I claim that errors are infrequent… ”
But, since the prisons are secret, none of us can have any way of knowing. Furthermore, the lack of basic oversight suggests that, when there are errors, there will be no mechanism to correct them. And finally, since the people running the prisons know that there’s no public oversight, they have little or no incentive to prevent errors or to quickly deal with them when they arise.
“… if the U.S. constitution said that the citizens should be guaranteed a full protection against the foreign terrorists by the government, it would definitely make the whole UN convention irrelevant.”
That may be so (although even this is debatable – “full protection against terrorists” doesn’t entail “unlimited freedom of detention and torture”). But, unless I’m mistaken, the Constitution doesn’t prohibit legislation against torture, so your point seems to be moot.
Now, the Constitution could (in principle) be amended to include such a prohibition – an amendment that says “No legislation, internal or external, may be passed which limits the powers of the President to conduct warfare in any way he sees fit”. But such a move would have the immediate effect of withdrawing from the Convention anyway – so no ‘loophole’ like the above footnote would be required.
The above footnote, as I understand it, says “We agree with the spirit of the Convention, but the freedoms expressed in the Constitution might have to trump some of the details”. Declaring open season on secret detention and torture isn’t ‘wriggling out of a detail’ – it’s just an outright abandonment of the essence of the Convention itself.
December 5th, 2005 at 10:11 am
“And finally, since the people running the prisons know that there’s no public oversight, they have little or no incentive to prevent errors or to quickly deal with them when they arise.”
Well, given the fact that the German citizen who has claimed to be an innocent victim of these policies has been described in 460 news sources listed by Google and many others, let me assume that your statement that there’s no public oversight was just a joke.
December 5th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Another reference for those who are interested, the issues of torture and terror are very old ones in Israel, and one can find the same range of emotions and arguments. In 1999 the Israeli supreme court made the following decision as providing guidlines for (but not outlawing) torture:
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/94/000/051/a09/94051000.a09.htm
One argument for having guidelines had been that in their absence simple soldiers bear unfair share of the responsibility when something goes wrong, while their commanders, and all the civilian leaders, are nowhere to be found. I believe this is another point of similarity.
December 5th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
A single german citizen is very different from the large number of innocent Iraqis which anecdotal evidence indicates were randomly rounded up and subjected to torture.
Also, I still haven’t heard a reason why these prisions should be secret.
December 5th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
bittergradstudent:
Yes and this in turn generates support for terrorism. The world has become a very dangerous place thanks to Bush.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Thanks for the correction, Lubos. In my ignorance, I had thought there might be a problem that we needed to be concerned about. But as you point out, at least one person (out of, er, some n>1) has received some public attention from the media. I now recognise that by any reasonable standards, that clearly counts as “public oversight”, and I apologise for misrepresenting the situation.
December 5th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Here’s what Senator Arlen Specter said on the floor of the Senate earlier this year (during a debate on habeaus corpus for detainees:
What Specter and the other Senators on his committee were doing is what is known as oversight.
December 5th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-usa/reports
The links here are useful.
December 5th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
Those of you who are hearing of this kind of conduct for the first time from the Bush administration might be interested to know of a case in progress since last Spring, where the CIA carried off a suspect to Egypt where the suspect says that he was tortured. The suspect was under surveillance by Italian police at the time he was whisked away. A judge in Milan has charged all of the CIA agents involved in that operation. This story has been big news in Italy for the last 5 months. More on the story can be found here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9276.htm
December 5th, 2005 at 5:48 pm
As Haelfix notes,
“‘Torture’ is often defined differently by different people so it tends to be hard to figure out exactly what people are talking about.”
But isn’t that one of the things a public court system can handle, ie interpret and set public references (precedent’s)?
The idea of distributing rulemaking and decisions to lowest possible levels (like the US Constitution and lower) is practical and efficient, but there are also positive effects of standards (like UN conventions) such as visibility and predictability.
December 6th, 2005 at 6:23 am
Arun quotes Arlen Specter:
Arun – I think you mean to say “What Specter and the other Senators on his committee were trying to do, and being prevented from properly doing is what is known as oversight.”
Honestly, how can you quote the above sentences to us, and take them as evidence that the system is working? Doesn’t effective oversight generally require that those in charge recognise and submit to the monitoring process, rather than trying to impede it?
December 6th, 2005 at 8:16 am
Logopetria, you are right in that what Specter et. al. were thwarted from doing is what is called oversight. But where did I claim the system is working? It is quite evident that it is not. If you go and look at the debate that I quoted from , you will find that one reason Arlen Specter voted for retaining the right of habeaus corpus for detainees (even though army prisoners of war never had such a right) is because of this inability to make sure that the rules are indeed being followed regarding treatment of prisoners. Specter also noted that the Congress has mostly failed to act; the only vigilance has been exercised by the courts.
You should hardly complain about what I wrote after your #32.
December 6th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
Does anyone know any blogs about physics that purposefully avoids posts about politics and making fences?
December 6th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Plenty on the blogroll. Bye!
December 6th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
(#39) I tend to be less interested in those scientists that are not involved in the activities of their social, cultural and political environments.
December 6th, 2005 at 5:34 pm
MobyDikc:
Politics is a physical phenomena too.
December 6th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
Sean: And good riddance to MD! At the root of power is technology; at the root of technology is science; at the root of science is the scientist. What sort of idiot savant could do science and be unconcerned with the implications of his/her work? Most of us admirers of Einstein appreciate his efforts to understand the meaning of his life’s work as his efforts to understand the nature of the world.
In any case, nobody’s forced to participate in any particular thread. There’s plenty of good science stuff on your blog. Keep up the good work.
December 7th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
Arun:
I took your comment to be a counterargument to the claim that there was no oversight. Apologies for misunderstanding.
I also assumed that the sarcasm in my comment #32 would be obvious. I’ll try to make it more obvious next time I’m trying to insult Lubos!
December 8th, 2005 at 12:10 pm
So now Rice and the Bush regime are backpedaling saying we shouldn’t do this. Hopefully they are getting the message that this is just not how we do things in the United States of America or for that matter the entire civilized world.
Lubos wrote:
“Dear Moshe, indeed, I would also recommend us and you in particular to save your energy for other things and avoid comments about questions that you have no idea about – such as war strategy.”
Lubos can you please review your military/intellegence service background for us so we can understand how you came to be such an expert on these matters?
Elliot
December 8th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
Elliot, how many times do you have to be told? String theory is the Theory Of Everything. Hence, its proph… sorry about that, I mean its practitioners are by definition Experts On Everything.
December 8th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Lubos:
I’m more concerned about innocent people being wrongly branded as terrorists. Even with all the checks and balances of the justice system, innocent people are put behind bars in the US. This happens in other countries too, but in the US this isn’t considered to be a big deal.
People say that the judicial system did work if a man on death row is freed after 20 years on death row after DNA evidence proved him innocent. In France the justice minister ordered an investigation after convictions for pedophelia were overturned on appeal after 4 years.
If a prosecutor can get away with this in a normal court:
http://members.shaw.ca/imaginarycrimes/smith&allen.htm
”Prosecutor Jonathan Rosenbaum told the jury that the children hadn’t identified Allen at the line up because they were paralyzed with fear. One mother testified that when her little boy saw Allen, he started crying and ran from the viewing room. The video tape of the lineup, which was not shown to the jury, proves her testimony was false — her son didn’t cry or run from the room, but rather seemed to be having a good time.”
then what do you think will happen if there is no court at all?