The Business of Torture
Outsourcing has been embraced by the CIA
 

March 14 2005
Counterbias.com
Scott C. Smith
 

Most Americans are probably familiar with the concept of “outsourcing,” which is the practice of farming out work to foreign countries. For instance, in the world of high tech, many companies are taking advantage of the fact that in a country like India, there are many skilled engineers who can be hired to work on a project, and since the worker is in India, would be paid much less than an engineer working in America. Chances are, if you’ve ever phoned a company for technical support, you will have reached a call center in India or Malaysia.

The CIA has embraced the concept of outsourcing as well, only in the CIA’s case, it is called “rendition.” Rendition is the practice of sending a prisoner held by the United States to countries like Egypt and Pakistan for interrogation.

Why Egypt or Pakistan? The simple reason: those countries are not bound by the Geneva Conventions. Which means they can “interrogate” prisoners in a more “effective” manner than we could, since the United States is bound by the Geneva Conventions.

The New York Times broke the story on March 5. Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration authorized the CIA to carry out renditions, without needing approval from the White House, State Department, or Justice Department.

It’s a nice loophole. Well, nice if you are trying to extract information from a suspect but do not want to have to deal with pesky international laws about the treatment of that prisoner.

The United States maintains that it only sends prisoners to countries that have promised not to torture the prisoner.

The Bush administration’s position on “rendition” raises a question: if we’re sending the prisoner off to a country with the promise that the prisoner will not be tortured, why do we need to send that prisoner off in the first place?

It’s fair to say that while a country might provide assurances that a prisoner will not be tortured, the security personnel interrogating the prisoner may not be aware of an assurance that the prisoner is not subject to torture. It’s a good excuse. It was the excuse of the U.S. military personnel at Abu Ghraib: they didn’t know they weren’t supposed to “abuse” prisoners.

As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius noted in his March 9 column, professional intelligence officers recognize that the practice of torture is not the most reliable way to obtain information from a prisoner. Under the duress of pain, a prisoner might confess to crimes he hadn’t committed, in order to stop the torture.

According to the New York Times, 100 to 150 suspected terrorists captured after Sept. 11, 2001 were shipped off to countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Pakistan.

Some prisoners complained of being beaten, shackled, humiliated, and subjected to electric shocks, the New York Times reported.

The Geneva Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states, “No State Party Shall expel, return, or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

Countries like Saudi Arabia, for example. Yes, our good friends, Saudi Arabia. Let’s just say they do not have a great record when it comes to human rights violations. The Kingdom is pretty strict. But, we get a lot of oil from them, so it’s pretty easy to look the other way when it comes to the issue of torture of prisoners.

I’m sure the Bush administration would assure Americans concerned about “rendition” that it has been a helpful tool in fighting terrorism. After all, there have been no further attacks against the United States.

When George W. Bush first took office, he promised America that his administration would adhere to the highest standards of ethics and behavior. Which, apparently, does not include adhering to international law.

Totally ethical, otherwise. Now if we could just find Osama Bin Laden…

---