Outsourcing Torture

In
a particularly disquieting development a local law firm here in the Boston
area has been implicated in a despicable practice which has been largely
overlooked by the American public and press.  We are talking about
the circumvention of legal, moral and international prohibitions of torture
by turning selected suspects over to unscrupulous allies to do the dirty
work for us.

This is no less a crime than hiring someone to kill your
ex-wife. The connection to the Dedham Law firm is convoluted but unquestioned.  They
are the legal owners of a mysterious white private jet which has been
flying all over the world, picking up those selected for torture and delivering
them to the torturers at least since 1991. From the
Boston Globe:

Since that time, the jet — apparently on long-term
lease to the US military — has surfaced in other alleged cases of what
the CIA
calls "extraordinary" rendition — the secret practice of
handing prisoners in US custody to foreign governments that don’t hesitate
to use
torture in interrogations.

The covert procedure, which must be authorized by a presidential directive,
has gained little attention inside the United States. Yet, "extraordinary
rendition," one of the earliest tools employed
in the war against terror, has outraged human rights activists and former
CIA agents, who say it violates the international convention on torture
and amounts to "outsourcing" torture.

"People are more or less openly admitting that there are certain practices
that we would rather not do in the US, so why not let our allies do it?" said
Ray McGovern, a former CIA operations officer who has frequently criticized
the tactics used in the war on terror.

In recent weeks, the practice has become nearly synonymous with the white,
20-seat, private Gulfstream jet, numbered N379P and registered in Massachusetts.

Obviously, torture is something we shouldn’t be associated
with in any way, shape or form.  At the same time, and as the gripping
"24" has dramatize, in a hypothetical situation in which terrorists
have smuggled a nuclear device into an American city, and the authorities
have an individual in custody whom they believe knows where it is, what
to do?

Who could argue, with millions of lives at stake, that
the authorities should not do whatever necessary to obtain the information.  Could
it not be argued that if they refrain from using force or torture and the
worst happens, they would be morally if not legally responsible for the
massive death and destruction?

Of course, that is an extreme and fantastic scenario.  The
problem is, if you admit the possibility of torture in such a situation,
where do you draw the line, and how do you avoid using it in cases that
are not so extreme, immediate or clear-cut? What criteria do you apply
to torture?

We do not have the answer, but are convinced that paying
(of course we are paying, but with what corrupt currency?) others to do
our dirty work out of the sight of decent people and the oversight of responsible
authorities is wrong, unAmerican and illegal.

article from the Boston Globe