First off, I am in no way defending what the CIA did. But to think that the EU has gotten everything right is a bit disingenuous. I think the fact that some Western European countries allowed transportation through to the black sites (and come on, the UK, Ireland, Germany, do you honestly think they didn’t know) and backed the initial war in Afghanistan is telling (and NATO is still involved there - and that was another place where torture was happening). The Eu leadership is not really going to stand up to the US on this issue, except in a very cursory, public way, meant to appeal their voters who have a mistrust of the US (rightfully so). There might have been little to no choice about participating, but to think that the EU leaders didn’t have a clue just doesn’t ring true.
The way I see it, the problem isn’t just George Bush or Barack Obama (or Angela Merkel, or Sarkozy, or Tony blair, etc), but the way power operates in the modern state in general. If you think that the EU leadership has had nothing to do with this, because nothing has publicly come out thus far, I’d guess you’ll be in for a surprise from historians in the next couple of decades.
I’m not really sure how much Western Europe learned from the war. I’m reading Origins of Totalitarianism right now (by Hannah Arendt) and I can see parallels to what’s happening in Europe regarding Muslims and the late 19th/early 20th century period.
Again, I don’t want to suggest that Europeans are at fault, more or less so than the US, but that they were complicit in all of this as well.
The profiles depict the 23 leaders in the context of their times, describing their triumphs and their setbacks not in isolation but as elements in a larger drama of domestic politics and foreign affairs. Their stories are inspiring, sometimes sobering, and always fascinating. They also feature, of course, the controversy that seems endemic to the sensitive and challenging work of intelligence.
Taken together, these profiles offer an illuminating account drawn from the full unclassified record. It is written in broad strokes but with enough detail to spark the kind of informed debate that has always been a hallmark of the CIA. Since its inception, our Agency has been rooted in a culture of inquiry and constant self-examination. This work stands as a fine example of that honorable tradition.
Half the world, indeed. I hope that the politicos involved will be outed and forced to answer for their role. I would love to see my ones squirm while being roasted under the spotlights.
If you take the time and read the Open Society report itself you will discover that the sentence “(insert country) allowed the use of its airports and airspace for flights associated with CIA extraordinary rendition operations.” is used quite often. Most often the participation of those countries consisted of turning a blind eye toward the flights but there are instances (e.g. Austria and others) where the US actually deceived their allies.
And like everything else that happened in this horrifying era, the most despicable actors siphoned unbelievable amounts of money out of their evil.
The two psychologists who helped the CIA create the torture techniques earned over $81 million.
“In 2006, the value of the CIA’s base contract with the company formed by the psychologists with all options exercised was in excess of $180 million; the contractors received $81 million prior to the contract’s termination in 2009. In 2007, the CIA provided a multi-year indemnification agreement to protect the company and its employees from legal liability arising out of the program. The CIA has since paid out more than $1 million pursuant to the agreement.” [Page 11]
It was not the Constitution that allowed torture but the evil bastards who turned and twisted it’s meaning to allow that to happen while we just stood there and cheered USA, USA, USA. I would like to see some of those evil folks in the dock being tried for crimes against humanity starting with Bush and Cheney but that will never happen.
This is important because it’s rather hard to deny when it comes from such an apologist as Diane Fienstien. There probably isn’t much interesting if you’ve been following this since Clinton started it (extraordinary rendition was started by him).
We were lead by people who enjoy torture, and by those who are OK with it. After all, since it’s long been known that it doesn’t produce useful info, and it’s illegal (Ronald Reagan signed it into law, I don’t like him, but I think he was the last US President who thought there were any limits at all to what the state could do to a person).
Likely the people who were responsible for this torture will never be found accountable in a court of law.
And somewhere, out there, dictators and oppressive regimes are taking notes, because this report is a great manual of, not exactly new techniques (because they’re not), but the kind upper limit of oppressive regimes can use to maintain their power (they’re not going to give a shit about the effectiveness of torture in obtaining information), because, hey, the USA did it, we can, too.
And when the dictator or leader of the oppressive regime gets dragged in front of something like the ICC, they’re going to look at the judges in the eye and say, this time with their sheaf of notes, that “I do not recognize the authority of the court, because me and my regime took our torture methods from the CIA reports, and yet I do not see any conviction of anyone responsible for that. How can you call yourselves arbiters of justice when powerful Westerners get to sleep in their beds at night, secure in the fact that they escaped punishment for the atrocities they did?”
Oh, I don’t doubt that the dictator will get punished, just the way that the Nazi leadership were punished in the Nuremberg trials, despite the fact that one of their defenses was that none of their atrocities were novel, they had not only followed the methods of countries like Belgium, but also methods that California adopted. I’m pretty sure that most commentators will dismiss the dictator’s claim as self-serving, because that’d be true.
They’d still be taking notes, though. And they’d be comforting themselves over the idea that as horrible and abusive they would be, they’re not doing anything that hasn’t been done before by the so-called “promoter” of “human rights”.
