It’s nowhere near as evocative as last week’s “gormless,” but this “rendition” (not a Cole Porter one!) is government-speak, so we wouldn’t expect it to be. Anyway, the usage was new to me and is apparently a euphemism for sending terrorists to a ‘friendly’ country for interrogation (often for coercive treatment beyond norms). Brother Michael defines it in an article this morning, which contains some interesting information from Michael Scheuer, the retired CIA officer who recently wrote a bestseller under the nom de plume “Anonymous.” Scheuer says the controversial “rendition” technique began not with the Bush Administration, but with Clinton.
Of course, don’t expect this distinction to be heavily under discussion in the Alberto Gonzalez confirmation hearing, which seems destined to throw more heat than light on the torture issue (inept pun not intended). I couldn’t agree more with Glenn Reynolds in his assertion a couple of days ago that a confirmation hearing is the wrong place for any kind of serious discussion of this matter. These hearings have become in recent years–perhaps they always were–mostly showcases for partisan blowhards of all stripes. The media, of course, make it even worse in a situation like this, fanning the flames in a circus of hypocrisy. The limits of interrogation need to be clearly defined and respected, but don’t expect that to happen here. What is really on trial is the war, not its methods.
PJM Home
9 Comments
1. Rick Ballard:“What is really on trial is the war, not its methods.”
As the Dems mount their theatrical farce in these hearings, what’s really on trial is the decision to let Spector chair Judiciary. If Spector does as I expect and lets the DNC/M$M smear tactics drag Gonzales through the mud without exacting a price, then Hewitt’s advice will be proven wrong and NRO’s stand against Spector will be shown to have been correct.
Michael Ledeen makes excellent points in the article cited but I believe that allowing dead media to set the terms of the debate is a mistake. Dead media has produced no facts to back up assertions that it is actual administration policy to condone or encourage torture. Dead media has also not made any attempt to establish a definition of the term torture that is consonant with their usage.
Live media is being far to reactionary in this matter. A portion of live media’s strength comes from its ability to demand facts to be checked rather than assertions to be debated. Pounding the table and demanding that the dead media zombies provide substance to back their narrative would be a more effective use of live medias strength than trying to debate unfounded assertions.
Jan 6, 2005 - 9:22 am 2. Patrick Tyson:Cole Porter
Roger—
Are you daily looking at the “For your consideration…” DVD of De-Lovely and then looking for anything with a little more promise?
Jay Cocks will be remembered for introducing Scorcese to DeNiro and for a line he doesn’t remember saying. Irwin Winkler will be remembered for movies he produced a decade or more ago. Kevin Kline will be remembered for Otto. Ashley Judd will be remembered for an Academy Awards dress.
De-Lovely will get less play than Night and Day in a couple of years.
Looking for anything with a little more promise?
There is always the movie that began with:
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…
Jan 6, 2005 - 12:17 pm 3. Terrye:I saw today that a Brit from Gitmo says we sent him to Egypt to be tortured. Yeah right. Would you buy a car from that guy? He goes all the way to Afghanistan to kill Americans and gets all huffy when his tail gets dragged off to Cuba. He should be thankful he is still alive and leave it at that.
It is like when I heard that a memo from a General stating our Reserves are ‘broken’ had been ‘leaked’. I thought, here we go again. Needless to say the guy does not like the way the military is changing. Notice how these guys can’t just get out front with this stuff? There has to be a leak. So much for chain of command.
I think there are a lot of powerful people in the military and the intelligence community that do not like having to change and they are getting really mouthy.
And I think there are a lot of lazy law makers out there that have been in government a lot longer than Gonzales has and if there is something out there in the law that sanctifies torture then they are no doubt responsible for it. The hypocrites.
But in truth I think Abu Ghraib was an example of a lack of supervision by a relatively few people.
There were times in WW2 when American soldiers did somethings that would not be considered to be in compliance with the Geneva accords. Nobody blamed FDR. Back then people were not so blame obsessed.
Jan 6, 2005 - 2:04 pm 4. Jim Rockford:The problem here is that the hearings are a looming disaster for the Democrats. They are so eager for a gotcha with Bush on torture at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo that they are ignoring the dangers AND the need for holding Bush accountable for the wide variation on treatment of prisoners. Some we just let go. Others get civil trials. Still others get held indefinitely.
The danger is that some idiot blowhard Senator like Kennedy, or Kerry, or Patty Murray (”Osama builds daycare centers, that’s why Muslims hate us”) will ask a question about torture and Gonzalez will drop the Kitty Dukakis bomb … the hypothetical that if we have Osama or Zarqawi, would the Democrats put up legal limits to his questioning even if it meant sacrificing a city like Dallas or Miami to nuclear attack?
Boom. In one moment the Democrats are defined as weak, soft on terror, and at worst Osama’s civil liberties mouthpiece. There is NO good answer for that question. Believe me Gonzalez is waiting to unload with it.
Bush’s AG will carry out policy, regardless of the man or woman. The problem is that the Dems have NOT focused on the dangers of no clear policy. Do we release guys who’s governments pressure us to do so? At least one “innocent” Al Queda prisoner from Gitmo went on to kidnap and kill Chinese engineers after being returned to Pakistan. Do we give wealthy/connected guys like “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh a civil trial instead of a military tribunal? Do we hold guys indefinitely?
Related to this; do we have questioning that amounts to pressure and witholding of special privileges but does not amount to torture when dealing with prisoners who do not adhere to the Geneva Convention or follow the rules of War? I’m talking about loud music, sleep deprivation, excessive air conditioning, no air conditioning, non-haram food. Is this torture?
Israel’s Supremem Court eventually dealt with similar matters, holding that “pressure positions” and sleep deprivation were allowed (within monitored limits) but no striking of prisoners, physical contact, etc. At least they have a standard, it’s not asking to much to have the Dems hold Bush’s feet to the fire to FINALLY define policy and stick with it.
But no, we’ll have a circus, and a riposting gotcha moment with OBL. Just wait.
Jan 6, 2005 - 3:01 pm 5. PeterUK:Terrye,
This Brit?
If we are doing standards,
“I get no pain from sham kicks”
Jan 6, 2005 - 4:06 pm 6. PeterUK:Sorry LINK,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2181196.stm
Jan 6, 2005 - 4:08 pm 7. M. Simon:I have heard stories (sorry no link) that torture is down in Afghanistan and battle field deaths are up.
I wonder if this is what the anti-torture folks had in mind.
Dead men tell no tales. They also do not require prisons and guards.
Militarily the way you make this come about is you have insufficient men on a mission to guard any but the most high value detainees.
Every action has a second order effect.
Jan 7, 2005 - 12:26 am 8. richard mcenroe:Render unto thugs the things that are thuggish…
In a related note, Ted Kennedy condemned the use of near-drowning as an interrogating tool. You heard me. Ted Kennedy has an opinion on drowning.
Jan 7, 2005 - 7:48 am 9. nheath:“Rendition” is not a slick new euphimism. It is a legal term of art, and was used in early 19th Cent. U.S. to refer to the return of fugitive slaves by order of the governor of the state to which the fugitive had fled. It is related to, but not exactly the same as “extradition.”
I hasten to add that one should avoid cheap comparison of the term terrorist “rendition” with slave renditions. The legal quandry with regard to terror-war detentions and interrogations exists because the terrorists themselves worked hard at creating legal nether-world in which to operate, claiming to be engaged in something like war rather than crime, but not being responsible to any national government for the conduct of war, including the parole of POWs. They sought to fall between the cracks of national and international law, and now they find themselves outside the legal protections of any nation.
Jan 7, 2005 - 9:20 am