Cut the crap
by Gadgie, 13 March 2008
Kamm on extraordinary rendition:
It means moving someone from one country to another without reference to a formal extradition treaty … the detention of a suspect in one country and their transfer to another by the CIA. There are good reasons that the first country might wish to take this course. It might not have a legal system capable of disinterestedly dispensing justice, owing to the threat of intimidation. There might be domestic political reasons for the government to be reluctant to cooperate too closely with the United States.
Amnesty International on extraordinary rendition:
… the transfer of individuals from one country to another, by means that bypass all judicial and administrative due process. … The most widely known manifestation of rendition is the secret transfer of terror suspects into the custody of other states – including Egypt, Jordan and Syria – where physical and psychological brutality feature prominently in interrogations. The rendition network’s aim is to use whatever means necessary to gather intelligence, and to keep detainees away from any judicial oversight.
A bit different aren’t they?
Want to know the reality of Jordan, Syria or Egypt? Read here, here and here.
Thursday 13 March 2008 at 15:05
Kamm continues:
“The particular controversy over rendition concerns torture, and on this point European objections are on firmer ground. The US is a signatory to the Geneva conventions against torture, yet terrorist suspects have been sent to countries that are guilty of human rights violations and have used torture.
Torture is wrong and does not work. […] There should be no rendition to autocracies whose word on the issue of torture is untrustworthy, such as Syria.”
You can, and clearly do, disagree with Mr Kamm on the specifics, but quoting him selectively does no-one any favours.
Thursday 13 March 2008 at 15:55
Kammo defends the idealised principle of extraordinary rendition based on a couple of very extraordinary examples, then pleads for European elites to stop only the bad concrete examples (despite the UK govt’s recent embarrassment).
It’s a game of two halves, neither of which goes particularly near the goal.
Friday 14 March 2008 at 1:30
Selective quoting? Maybe. But I was highlighting two things.
1. That the definition of rendition that Kamm supplied is contentious at best and, at worst, apologist for the abuse of state power.
2. That he is using a standard rhetorical device. He makes a defence of rendition, puts torture flights in scare quotes, and then, just as dirigible says, uses an exception to excuse himself from association of the most egregious consequences of a policy he supports.
He is quite good at this. In his follow up post, he signals Norm’s criticisms and then only deals with the loons posting bollocks instead.