Reply With Quote
How much of that was because or extradition treaties? Are those numbers excluded?
Report finds at least 54 countries co-operated with global kidnap, detention and torture operation mounted after 9/11 attacks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...covert-support
How much of that was because or extradition treaties? Are those numbers excluded?
Off the top of my head, I'm going to say zero.
Did you know the US has extradition treaties with 108 countries?
I recall that several were. that was many years back though.
Besides, a treaty is not required to hand a criminal over to another government that claims a legal right to them.
They call it extraordinary rendition for a reason.Way to undermine your own implied position.
If you say so. I think you don't understand where I was going, so your statement has no merit.They call it extraordinary rendition for a reason.Way to undermine your own implied position.
I think you never actually know what you are talking about, so nothing you say ever has any merit.
Your ignorance must be blissful.
I surmise yours might be a little more troubling.
And you believe the Guardian on that?
OK, Your contention is we kidnapped these people, rather than having legal cause to have them.
There could well be a legal rationale for extraordinary rendition, but I know of no formal treaties for it. If you want to move the goalposts, that's your business.
Calling it that doesn't make it so.
Were they kidnapped, then extradited, or not? Now some treaties even allow for such actions. However, two of the nations listed in the article are not part of any extradition treaty that could compel us to do so. Still, we had diplomatic relationships with them to make extradition possible. With these two countries, did we kidnap them, or not?
Since this report has to do with extraordinary rendition, I will repeat my original contention that it has nothing to do with existing extradition treaties.
You can read the whole report and explain how I'm wrong with citations if you wish.
I didn't read the entire 216 page report, but just because the report is calling it that, doesn't make it so. From what I did read, they are the ones adding the extra word, "extraordinary."
Next you will read someplace we didn't go the the moon, and agree with Cosmored.
Didn't see it anyplace, except their claim.
Did you find anything?
So exceptional America, self-congratulated moral, preening, sanctimonious, God-Preferred "Christian" leader of the planet, isn't so "exceptional" in its kidnapping/torture/murder activities.
America violates "human rights" just like all those ty countries America accused for decades of violating "human rights".
Or maybe America really is superior, exceptional, it's just that America is excepted from respecting human rights.
I note that Some People are very upset that America can hold America citizens indefinitely without charge or trial, and do murder them, but they aren't upset when America does the same to non-citizens.
So Chumpy...
I think you will agree that rendition is a type of extradition. So by your definition, when does extradition become rendition, and when does rendition become extraordinary rendition?
having failed to show any treaties supporting extraordinary rendition, WC mounts a weak semantic challenge with a hair-splitting flourish.
I am asking for proof that the term "extraordinary rendition" applies.
Were they caught on a battlefield, legally detained, or were they kidnapped?
Chump wishes to argue the agenda of an organization bought and paid for by George Soros. Do you too?
dunno. go ask Maher Arar.Were they caught on a battlefield, legally detained, or were they kidnapped?
According to what I read, he was legally detained. Therefore, he was not "kidnapped" which is a qualifier to become extraordinary rendition.
If you notice, I have not been responding to this from a moral view. Only the legal one. I think what happened to him was terrible.
widening the the "blame Bush" agenda to include countries that helped him violate basic human rights? I'd be for that."There is no doubt that high-ranking Bush administration officials bear responsibility for authorising human rights violations associated with secret detention and extraordinary rendition, and the impunity that they have enjoyed to date remains a matter of significant concern," the report says.
"But responsibility for these violations does not end with the United States. Secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations, designed to be conducted outside the United States under cover of secrecy, could not have been implemented without the active participation of foreign governments. These governments too must be held accountable."
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
