Strictly speaking, the answer is no, we're not relying on a regime notorious for torture. We're relying on several.
Suspects have been sent to Syria, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan, countries whose abusive practices have been documented and condemned by the State Department's annual human rights report. "We don't kick the s-- out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the s-- out of them," an unnamed official who had participated in the rendering of prisoners told the Post. Along with the prisoner, the CIA provides the foreign intelligence services a list of questions it wants answered.
And which of these countries is the Seattle Times article covering? Wrong. Neither Syria, Morocco, Egypt, nor Jordan, but Uzbekistan (although it does note that "U.S. intelligence officials estimate that the United States has transferred 100 to 150 suspected terrorists to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan"). So that's around seven countries notorious for torture that we're relying on.
The Bush administration continuously expresses their support for outsourcing torture--despite the fact that it's revoltingly immoral and illegal--by reassuring people that we get promises that these people won't be tortured. Sure. Then what's the point of sending them to these countries? What can Uzbekistan or Egypt do in interrogations that the United States can't?
I might not feel so bad if we didn't have people who vigorously defended abusing alleged terrorists (comments section).
No comments:
Post a Comment