Condi admits to extraordinary rendition but claims the US doesn’t torture. May I ask what is the purpose of rendition, then? Sightseeing? “Roughing-up”? Circumventing the Constitution? I wanna know.



  1. Of course the mind games that the Bush administration plays with itself become obvious:“We don’t torture” equals either:<>WE<> don’t torture (but Egyptians do – don’t ask, don’t tell)orWe don’t “torture” (but we have defined torture to mean causing a risk of organ failure, which water-boarding doesn’t.)or a combination of the two.Anyway, I don’t want a defence of torture here, just an explanation as to what rendition provides if it isn’t about torture. (And if it’s about habeas corpus, then what’s wrong with GitMo?)Boys, it’s about “torture,” which, of course, isn’t actually “torture.”


  2. I’ll tell you. It enables an agent burdened with the difficult task of extracting life-saving information to say to someone with that information: “punk, I know your little AQ boy scout manual tells you to yawn when Americans threaten torture because they won’t actually do it because they can’t on their soil–guess what…. we’re not in America sweetie. And I’m not even American. And we can do whatever the hell we want.” This creates a dynamic in which a psychological pressure can be applied that can’t be tapped on American soil. To see how American interrogators are bound, have a read here…. isn’t much these guys can do when they’ve got people in the states. Moving them out of the states doesn’t necessarily equate to torture (and I’m not justifying any situation in which torture occurs) but it may enable information to come out that might save my life or yours.


Comments are closed.