Published on Monday, February 7, 2005 by Agence France Presse
CIA 'Outsourcing Torture'
WASHINGTON - The
Central Intelligence Agency's "rendition" of suspected terrorists has
spiralled "out of control" according to a former FBI agent cited in a
report by The New Yorker magazine, which examined how CIA detainees are
spirited to states suspected of using torture. The CIA uses the word
"rendition" to mean the transport of suspected terrorists to other
countries for interrogation.
Michael Scheuer a former CIA agent, said "all we've done is create a nightmare," with regard to the top secret practice.
In a
forthcoming article titled "Outsourcing Torture" the magazine claims
suspects, sometimes picked up by the CIA, are often flown to Egypt,
Morocco, Syria and Jordan, "each of which is known to use torture in
interrogations".
Despite
US laws that ban America from expelling or extraditing individuals to
countries where torture occurs, Scott Horton - an expert on
international law who has examined CIA renditions - estimates that 150
people have been picked up in the CIA net since 2001.
The
New Yorker report reveals that suspects in Europe, Africa, Asia and the
Middle East "have been abducted by hooded or masked American agents"
and then sometimes forced onto a white Gulfstream V jet.
The
jet "has been registered to a series of dummy American corporations ...
(and) has clearance to land at US military bases," the report said. Its
tailmark has recently been changed from the code N379P to N8068V.
According
to one suspect, Maher Ayar, who was arrested in 2002 by US officials
and then claims he was tortured in Syria before being released, crew
onboard the Gulfstream identified themselves as "the Special Removal
Unit" during radio communications.
"The
most common destinations for rendered suspects are Egypt, Morocco,
Syria and Jordan, all of which have been cited for human rights
violations," the report said.
By
holding detainees without counsel or charges of wrongdoing, the
administration of US President George W Bush "has jeopardised its
chances of convicting hundreds of suspected terrorists, or even of
using them as witnesses in almost any court in the world," the report
said.
The report cited Dan Coleman, an ex FBI counter-terrorism expert who retired in July 2003.
Coleman
told The New Yorker that torture "has become bureaucratised," by the
Bush administration, and that the practice of renditions is "out of
control".
Scheuer
said there had been a legal process underlying early renditions, but as
more suspects were rounded up following the September 11, 2001,
attacks, "all we've done is create a nightmare".
Abductees
are effectively classified as "illegal enemy combatants," by the US
government, which is how it also classifies the estimated 550 "war on
terror" detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Such
a classification, the US argues, exempts such detainees from the
protections of the Geneva Conventions, part of which govern the
treatment of prisoners.
Monday, January 31, 2005
[The item below, from Martin Marty's "Sightings," deals with an issue with which some recent MOJ postings have dealt. --mp]
Sightings 1/31/05
Club
Evangelical
-- Martin E. Marty
James Madison, who had a thing or two
to do with constitutional matters in the early republic, wanted a "line of
separation" between "the rights of religion and the Civil authority." At a
recent workshop where I elaborated on that theme, a colleague persuaded me that
my views on this line are "messy." That's not a bad description for what I
think the nation's Founders brought to the matter and what they left us
with. We did not have, do not have, and will not have "absolute
separation," nor will we ever clearly and permanently "solve" issues along that
line. Fierce as one may be (and as I indeed am) about "non-establishment"
of religion and other such issues, it is not realistic to think one can draw an
"absolute" line. A person wanting to do so would start tomorrow by legally
ending tax exemption for religious properties and institutions. Not a
single member of Congress could get re-elected with that in her
platform.
Sometimes cases reaching the U.S. Supreme Court achieve
clear resolutions and definitions, but usually things are messy. That
calls to mind the newest messy-lined case, detailed best in Burton Bollag's
recent story "Choosing Their Flock" in the
Chronicle of Higher Education (January 28, 2005). The article's
subhead says that "conservative Christian groups have forced colleges to allow
them to bar gay students and nonbelievers." But now major institutions are
fighting back. It would be a good time to be a lawyer on either side,
though this is the kind of battle for which the concept of "pro bono" was
invented. Voluntary associations of conservative Christian legal experts
are on the front line. Want to take them on? Be prepared for
rough-and-ready argument. Prefer to side with the opposition? You
must not have met the informed and motivated legal and activist agents of
pro-gay groups.
Barring gays and non- or other-believers clearly
violates institutional rules and, almost as clearly, the laws behind them.
Those rules and laws prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, religion,
sex, disability, and other factors. Exclusion on the basis of sexual
orientation is barred on hundreds of campuses, especially public ones. And
since almost all private colleges also receive tax funds in one form or another,
the same rules and laws apply there. If the world were not messy, the
schools and the law would simply draw a bold, clear, and unwavering line between
"the rights of religion" and "the Civil authority," and here see the civil side
winning. Ah! But then come profound religious reactions: What
happens to "free exercise" if "we" are not permitted campus locations,
acknowledgments, and sanctions?
You haven't seen anything yet. Wait until the
Muslim student causes get activated on this front. There are, after all,
many "out" evangelical gays and many more closeted ones, and there is room for
debate -- indeed, there is debate -- on this issue among
Christians. But the Muslim rejection of homosexuality and homosexuals is
absolute and vehement. Will the campus laws support them?
The Chronicle story tells of some efforts by
thoughtful leaders, for instance at Ohio State University, where conversations
on this matter occur even when there is no basis for agreement. They are
trying to remain civil and humane across the messy line.
Do not envy the judges who have to decide this
issue as it makes its way up, as it surely will, to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which stands very little chance of getting a "civil" and "humane" response from
publics, whichever way it rules.Sightings comes from the Martin Marty
Center at the University of Chicago Divinity
School.
I just learned about a new radio program, PROVOKE, which is archived and available on the web. The host--Stephen Spahn, SJ--is a Jesuit priest and currently serves as associate pastor to the parish of The Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, DC. I lifted the following information from the website. To go to the website, click here.
--mp
About The Show
We thought, “wouldn't it be great if there was a program that discussed critical social issues not merely from a pundit's perspective, but from a religious perspective?” Yes, religion--that part of us we aren't always comfortable talking about, yet admit to its crucial importance in our lives. So, we created Provoke radio - intended not only as a forum for reflection, but reflection from the vantage of faith. As you listen to Provoke and visit the website, we invite you to do so from the distinct perspective of your own religious tradition. We'll illustrate how the principles we all embrace--principles found in every religion and culture--can be lived out in every day life. Principles as basic as the Golden Rule, compassion, equality, justice, and a conviction that each individual person has inherent, God-given dignity. Standing on this common ground, we then thought, “Wouldn't it be great if we not only engage people in an exploration of real issues, but offer practical ways to get involved? Wouldn't it be great if we provoke people not merely to thought and reflection…but to action?” To that end, at the close of every show, we mention area programs --faith-based and secular, advocacy and outreach--which are in need of volunteers and support. In addition, you can consult our website database for a more thorough list of such organizations.
About The Host
Father Stephen Spahn, SJ, is a Jesuit priest and currently serves as associate pastor to the parish of The Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, DC. Father Spahn received his Certificat d'Etudes Politiques from the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris, France; B.S. and M.S. degrees in International Politics and Foreign Policy Studies from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, Washington DC; his M.A. in Philosophy from Fordham University, New York; and his Masters of Divinity and Theology from Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He recently taught philosophy and political science at Loyola College in Baltimore. His time at Loyola involved work in their Center for Values and Service where he came to know and understand the complicated problems of the Baltimore community. In addition, Fr. Spahn has done case studies of the U.S. foreign policy in the Sudan and has traveled to and worked in Mexico, Haiti, and China among others. Father Spahn serves as the host for Provoke in between all his other ministries!
About The Database
Provokes’s database is meant as a guide to anyone looking for different ways to get involved in social justice, charity, and other worthwhile causes in the Baltimore/Washington DC area. While lengthy and diverse, it is by no means meant to be completely comprehensive. But if you have been provoked to action by our program, this database is a good place to start!
Provoke Radio is brought to you by Radio Mass of Baltimore, www.st-ignatius.net
Monday, January 17, 2005
The passage Michael S. reproduces in his post today (immediately below) troubles me. Why? Let me answer with the following two quotes:
The two types of authority that concern us here (authority to govern and authority to teach) are, of course, distinct and can be discussed separately. In the Roman Catholic Church, however, we find that they are often intermingled, and sometimes even confused with each other. Over the centuries governing power has often been used (and misused) to bolster teaching authority. Such an approach can easily amount to little more than "we are right because we are in charge" or "we give orders, not explanations." --Bernard Hoose, "Authority in the Church," 63 Theological Studies 107 (2002).
Some Catholics concede that the church admits of the principle of doctrinal development, but they accuse [John] Noonan, in Richard John Neuhaus's words, of too often equating development with "a change, even a reversal, of doctrine." At a recent meeting of the Catholic Common Ground initiative, Noonan and theologian Avery Dulles had a polite, but sharp, exchange on the subject, with Noonan again insisting that "the record is replete with mistakes--the faithful just can't accept everything that comes from Rome as though God had authorized it." --John T. McGreevy, "A Case of Doctrinal Development: John T. Noonan -- Jurist, Historian, Author, Sage," Commonweal, Nov. 12, 2000, at 12, 17.
Michael P.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Click here to see a Consumer Reports web page on which an infant in a car seat is referred to as "precious cargo".
Click here to see a Consumer Reports web page on which a baby in the womb is referred to as "uterine contents".
A question for the editors of Consumer Reports (or for anyone else who cares to answer): At what point does "uterine contents" morph into "precious cargo"?
Michael P.
Church ends taboo on mercy killings· Archbishop's aide signals new approach
· 'Compassionate case' for voluntary euthanasia
Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday January 16, 2005
Observer
The
Church of England took a radical step towards backing 'mercy killing'
of terminally ill patients last night after one of its leading
authorities said that there was a 'strong compassionate case' for
voluntary euthanasia.
Canon
Professor Robin Gill, a chief adviser to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop
of Canterbury, said people should not be prosecuted for helping dying
relatives who are in pain end their lives. Last week Gill was sent by
Williams to give evidence to a parliamentary committee investigating
euthanasia.
Gill's
stance marks a major shift by the Church of England and was welcomed by
groups campaigning for a change in the law to allow for people to be
helped to die under strictly limited circumstances.
'There
is a very strong compassionate case for voluntary euthanasia,' Gill
told The Observer . 'In certain cases, such as that which involved
Diane Pretty [the woman who was terminally ill with motor neurone
disease and who campaigned for the right to be helped to die], there is
an overwhelming case for it.'
His
claims were last night seized on by pro-euthanasia groups as evidence
that the archbishop is prepared to engage in a debate on an issue that
has long divided the clergy.
They
described Williams's decision to send Gill to give evidence to the
committee hearing Lord Joffe's private member's bill on assisted dying
for the terminally ill as 'highly significant' and suggested that it
represented a softening of the Church's attitude to mercy killings.
'The
archbishop's choice of Gill represents a willingness to enter into a
more constructive dialogue than before about this important issue. We
hope it will encourage other members of the clergy to speak out openly
in support,' said Deborah Annetts, chief executive of the Voluntary
Euthanasia Society.
Gill's
comments come after Brian Blackburn, a retired policeman who killed his
terminally ill wife in a suicide pact, walked free from the Old Bailey
last Friday with a nine-month suspended sentence.
[To continue reading this piece, click here.]
Michael P.
Friday, January 14, 2005
[From PBS's Religion & Ethics Newsweekly]
Just War and Just Peace
January 14, 2005 Episode no. 820
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week820/exclusive.html
Christian Ethicists Advocate Just Peacemaking as Corollary to Just War
by Alexandra Alter
Almost two years have passed since the start of the Iraq war, but war,
peace, and nation-building still dominated the debate among Christian
ethicists at their annual meeting this January.
In a significant shift, many scholars endorsed taking a proactive approach to peacemaking rather than merely shunning war.
At their 2003 meeting, two months prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
most ethicists criticized the impending conflict either by arguing that
a preemptive invasion did not meet standards of Christian "just war"
theory or by advocating pacifism. At their 46th annual gathering last
weekend in Miami, some members of the Society of Christian Ethics
proposed what they say is a powerful third alternative: the application
of "just peacemaking theory" as a method of defusing current conflicts
and preventing future wars.
[To continue reading this piece, click here.]
Michael P.
