Torture- hunh?

[welsh]

The British House of Lords took a stand and said no evidence arrived at through torture could be used as evidence.

And Connie Rice said.... something... Unclear....

Is this all just legalspeak?

Torture

Minced words

Dec 8th 2005
From The Economist print edition

The Bush administration still does not grasp how damaging its stand on torture has been

IT IS hard to know which is worse: an administration that cannot understand that something is wrong, or one that grasps the problem but thinks it can fiddle its way through. The Bush administration seems torn between these approaches when it comes to the issue of torture.

Torn between dumb and dumber.

Bush dynasty- Stupid, arrogant and increasingly monolithic- A strong imperial dynasty among the Bushes, a family that sees its mission in life as to provide leadership (regardless of how foolish the leader may be).

Some of the administration's leading lights, notably Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, seem to have discarded the idea that America's good name counts for much in the war on terror.

There was a little good name, somewhere around 9/11. Something inherited from the Clinton administration and dashed with the Bushes.

WHy, because they felt America could "do no wrong."
And so goes the folly of arrogant men.

For the vice-president and the defence secretary the debate about torture, just like those about Guantánamo Bay and the CIA's supposed secret prisons in eastern Europe, apparently comes down to military efficacy. Global public opinion, hearts and minds, call-it-by-whatever-soppy-name-you-liberals-want, is irrelevant. This approach may be pig-headed—torture often does not work and most military men think hearts and minds are crucial in fighting terrorism—but at least Mr Cheney's opposition to Senator John McCain's proposed ban on American soldiers and spies using torture or other degrading treatment is consistent.

Ah, but so was the Emperor's commitment to the dark side of the force.

Condoleezza Rice takes a different approach. The secretary of state seems to have realised that Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo have been great recruiting posters for Osama bin Laden; she sees America's unpopularity in Europe as a threat, not a badge of honour. She flew across the Atlantic this week to defend America's reputation, particularly against the accusation that the CIA has used European airports for “torture flights”—taking terrorist suspects either to its own secret prisons, or to countries where torture is tolerated.

Yes, but what does it mean to represent a country that condones torture and yet cry that it doesn't condone torture. Is it worse perhaps to be inconsistent or to be stupid or just to be deceptive.

Ms Rice's visit served as a reminder to the more extreme Americanophobes of three things. First, that many of the accusations hurled at her country remain unproven. Second, that any alleged transgressions by America pale when set beside those of the enemies both it and Europe are fighting. And, third, that American intelligence has helped save European lives. Yet she still left behind too many unanswered questions.

Well, let's be fair- it's easy (and cheap) to be an American basher these days.

To be fair to Ms Rice, the bar she had to jump over was, in some instances, impossibly high thanks to the obstructionism of her colleagues. For instance, when Ms Rice insists that America does not do anything illegal or break any international conventions, this counts for little when the administration has argued, first, that during time of war, the president can make just about anything legal, and, second, that the UN Convention Against Torture does not apply to interrogation of foreign terrorist suspects outside the United States.

The problem for Connie Rice is that she makes big speeches but avoids all the nasty exceptions. And it's often those exceptions that swallow the rule.

Even with that excuse, however, she spoke too often like a defence lawyer rather than a candid friend. For instance, when it comes to “extraordinary rendition” (the term for shipping suspects to other countries for interrogation), she said that America did not send them anywhere where it knows they will be tortured. But as she well knows, the difficult question is whether America has shipped them to places where they may be tortured.

"No" vs. "May"
"What's that Omar? You might torture a confession out of this witness? But you might not.... Well as long as you just 'might' Wouldn't want that on my conscience."

Slender distinctions there.

As for the CIA's use of European airports for such flights, she insisted that America has respected the sovereignty of the host countries—without going into any details about what that meant. Did America say who was on the flights (in which case the Europeans have no cause for complaint), or did it just say: “Trust us, we are acting legally?” Nobody knows, and the fact that she was backed up by a similarly vague supportive statement from Britain is not helpful.

Better yet, what about the European countries who know very well what's going on but turn a blind eye.

The ambiguity left by Ms Rice requires action both in Europe and in America. European governments should either explain to their people exactly what they have condoned, or they should find out exactly what the Bush administration is up to. Pestering America is not something that allies should do lightly. But in this case it is overdue, not least because the alternative is to watch anti-Americanism surge forward on a tide of human-rights cases. (An innocent German who was arrested in Macedonia and flown to a CIA facility, known as the “Salt Pit”, in Afghanistan filed a suit this week.)

But the main change must take place in Washington, DC. The time has long since passed for legal technicalities, for saying that the burden of proof lies with America's accusers or for pointing out the unquestionable evil of the men America is fighting. If America is to escape from the mesh in which it has entangled itself, it needs something decisive and unambiguous—such as the McCain amendment.

One relies on legal-speak when you have something you need to hide in plain speak. Hiring lawyers to edit your speeches is often a dangerous signal to send.