Rendition Unto Caesar
by
Paul Craig Roberts
by Paul Craig Roberts
The spectacle
of an American Secretary of State being sent to Europe to reassure
America’s allies that the US does not torture prisoners has brought
an end to America’s moral grandeur. America stands revealed before
the world as just another unaccountable police state.
Condi Rice’s
declaration that the Bush administration is too morally pure to
engage in torture was just another transparent Bush administration
deception. What is the point of Bush’s rendition policy that Rice
was sent to Europe to defend if the purpose is not torture? Why
else do CIA agents kidnap foreign nationals in foreign countries
and fly them to secret prisons in other foreign countries?
The Bush administration
defends its policy of "extraordinary rendition." Everyone
who has survived the policy has testified to experiencing brutal
torture. Just read the
account in the December 11 Sunday Observer (UK) of the
Ethiopian student that the CIA kidnapped and tortured in Morocco.
The student,
who speaks no Arabic, was brutally tortured for 18 months until
he was forced to confess to conspiring with top al Qaeda chiefs
and plotting with Padilla. While one American hand was forcing the
tortured student to incriminate himself in the "Padilla plot,"
the other American hand was dropping plot charges against Padilla!
The "Padilla
plot" was nothing but a fantasy made up by American officials
to justify their police state policies. Unlike the hapless Ethiopian
student, Padilla is an American citizen. After suffering three years
of illegal detention by the Bush administration, the law finally
gave Padilla some protection, and the false charges that he intended
to set off a radioactive bomb in an American city and blow up apartment
houses were dropped.
Some Americans,
horrified at what the Bush administration has done to their country,
took hope in Europe’s uproar over Bush’s rendition/torture policy.
Alas, European governments were shedding crocodile tears for show
purposes only.
On December
11 the Telegraph (UK) reported on a European Union document
in its possession that summarizes an EU-US meeting in Athens Greece
on January 22, 2003 in which the EU agreed to "co-operation
in removals." The
Telegraph reports that "EU officials confirmed that
a full account was circulated to all member governments."
So we have
the entire Western world complicit in kidnapping and torture. The
entire non-Western world surely notices the unbridgeable gap between
the Bush administration’s immoral practices and Bush’s moral posturing
about "freedom and democracy." The prestige of the Western
world is gone forever.
People will
say anything under torture, which is why the practice and the "evidence"
it provides were ruled inadmissible centuries ago. The great English
jurist, William Blackstone, declared that torture determined guilt
by the hardness of a man’s constitution and the sensibility of his
nerves. Blackstone proudly declared that there was no place for
the rack among the laws of England.
Everyone knows
that confessions obtained under torture are worthless. By having
them tortured, Stalin was able to get the heroes of the Bolshevik
Revolution to declare that they were guilty of striving to overthrow
the communist revolution!
Why then do
we have the disgusting spectacle of the president and vice president
of the US and their neoconservative apologists, such
as Charles Krauthammer, defending torture?
In his defense
of torture as a "moral duty," Krauthammer assumes that
the person being tortured is guilty and will reveal the truth under
torture. There is no basis whatsoever for Krauthammer’s assumptions.
The reason
that the Bush administration and the neocons defend torture is that,
having launched an illegal invasion and created an American police
state, they are desperate for "evidence" of the terrorist
threat in order to justify their illegal and unconstitutional policies.
The only way
to obtain this "evidence" is to torture people until they
confess to the plots that are invented for them. A steady
stream of confessed "terrorists" serves to justify the
police state that has been created. Bush revealed the ploy when
he asserted on December 10 that terrorist violence will be the result
if Congress does not renew the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act"
by December 31: "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to
be without that vital law for a single moment."
What
Bush declares to be a "vital law" is, in fact, the greatest
assault on civil liberties in the history of our country.
Do Americans
really want to give up the civil liberties granted to them by the
US Constitution merely in order that the Bush administration can
lord it over the Middle East, establish puppet governments over
Muslim peoples, and steal oil from Arabs and Persians?
If Americans
do, what remains of their virtue?
December
12, 2005
Dr.
Roberts [send him mail]
is
John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Research
Fellow at the Independent Institute.
He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal,
former contributing editor for National Review, and a former
assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of
The
Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Copyright
© 2005 Creators Syndicate
Paul
Craig Roberts Archives
|