by Deb Cupples | The phrase "Extraordinary Rendition" has been in the media a lot lately. My co-blogger Damozel discussed it several times in recent weeks (here, here and here).
"Extraordinary Rendition" sounds harmless -- even meaningless. What the phrase refers to is anything but harmless. It involves kidnapping a person, flying the person to a foreign country, and secretly torturing that person. Years ago, the CIA started using a private contractor (a Boeing subsidiary) to carry out its extraordinary renditions -- and innocent people have been caught up in the drag net.
This reminds me of a Washington Post article from May 2006, which describes the horrifying experience of one innocent victim of extraordinary rendition -- which reportedly included anal rape.
Give me a minute to stop cringing over the thought of someone forcing objects into someone's anus.
A German citizen named Khaled al-Masri had been mistakenly identified as someone with links to terrorists. (Washington Post) Oh well, we all make mistakes, right?
But the people who made the mistaken identification didn't simply arrest Mr. al-Masri, keep him a few days, and let him go with abject apologies.
No, CIA employees (or private contractors) held Mr. al-Masri for five months -- during which time Mr. al-Masri reportedly "was beaten, sodomized and repeatedly questioned about alleged terrorist ties."
When I hear words like "beaten" and "sodomized," I think of fists crashing into faces, brass knuckles plunging into kidneys, and objects being crammed up into rectums -- or even the filthy body parts of someone who enjoys probing people's insides with his fingers or fist or sex organ.
The thought of being subject to the whims of such arguably deranged people (supported by our tax dollars, no less) tightens my stomach into a cantaloupe-sized knot.
Mr. al-Masri reportedly was at such people's whims for five whole months. They didn't allow him to contact a lawyer or have a judge review his alleged terrorist ties to shed light on whether he was innocent or guilty.
They didn't have to, because they'd taken him (against his will) to another country. And it was all kept secret.
Please, spend a minute picturing yourself in that terrifying and hopeless position.
Ultimately, Mr. al-Masri sued, and he's just one of five plaintiffs, some of whom have not even been charged with crimes and may be innocent victims of "Extraordinary Rendition."
The Swedish government paid damages to one plaintiff because it felt partly responsible, Sweden being one of the stops on the CIA's (or its contractor's) flight which carried that kidnapped plaintiff to his hellish destination.
The New York Times describes allegations from court papers that a plaintiff named Binyam Mohamed (an Ethiopian) had suffered:
"The court papers describe horrific treatment in secret prisons. Mr. Mohamed claimed that during his detention in Morocco, 'he was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution and death.'"
Again, please spend a moment picturing yourself subject to such horrors.
How did the Bush Administration respond to lawsuits? By seeking dismissal of the cases. Bush Administration officials seemed to understand that some plaintiffs were had not even been charged with crimes and may be innocent victims of intelligence errors -- but claimed that to have the case heard by a court (even where classified information would be revealed only to a secrecy-bound judge) would jeopardize our national security.
Constitutional-lawyer-turned-journalist Glenn Greenwald reports that major media outlets and books had already discussed details of the cases.
In other words, there was nothing to keep secret: torture-related data arising out of the cases were already public knowledge.
Yet, Bush Administration officials kept arguing for protection under the State Secrets Doctrine: i.e., that our national security would suffer if a federal court were allowed to hear the cases.
Why is this all coming up again? Because President Obama's Justice Department faced an appellate court hearing yesterday, in which the issue came up.
How did the Obama Justice Department handle the hearing? By arguing to preserve the Bush Administration's policy of secrecy.
I already anticipate arguments from tough-on-terrorism types, saying things like: "We need to torture these folks to prevent another 9/11."
One flaw in that argument: some of the plaintiffs mentioned in this post were not charged with crimes and may be innocent victims of bad intelligence.
What if you were to somehow become an innocent victim of bad intelligence?
Here's the bottom line: the framers of our Constitution sought to protect citizens from government "mistakes" and abuses. If the politicians and bureaucrats running our nation are allowed to ignore the Constitution and other laws -- and allowed to hide their misdeeds behind a veil of secrecy -- then there's nothing to protect any of us from government "mistakes" and abuses.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Obama Administration Fails its First Civil Liberties Test?
* Regulators Close Three More Banks
* Economists Want Stimulus Package, "Free Market" Folks Flip Flop Again
* Save Jobs by Cutting Executive Pay
* Record-High Job Loss, Yet Republicans Want Tax Cuts for Rich Folks
* Real Bonuses Based on Fake Profits
* Obama's Executive Pay Cuts Don't Address Root Problems
* Richest Got Richer Under Bush and
.
.
Comments