« December 2005 »

"Sometimes, these efforts are misunderstood." - Condoleeza Rice

Memo to Condoleeza Rice: OOPS, MY BAD.

It's really kind of embarassing. I let my left-wing moonbat paranoia get the best of me. That's the only possible reason I could have found it suspicious, shady, or even NEFARIOUS that the US would use a secret fleet of charter planes to fly a bunch of secret prisoners to a bunch of secret detention centers in foreign countries.

Turns out it's really just a paperwork thing. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!

"But there have been many cases where the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option. In those cases, the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in the transfer of a suspect to a third country, which is known as a rendition."

See? It's really ust a technicality. Traditional extradition is, as we all know, a huge hassle. Like that "having to say who the captive is" thing. Pesky. Oh, and the "saying where he comes from" part. Inconvenient. Where they're being brought? Don't get me wrong. They'd LOVE to. But with the CIA's federally mandated two fifteen minute breaks per day, there simply isn't time.

And as for what's done to them once they get there, well, the best way to monitor that is to let an outside contractor like the Red Cross handle it, but with all the fuss these days about outsourcing, it's just not politic to let an international agency do work that the honest, hard-working black ops folks here can just lie about.

Is this the best she can do? "Sure, we fly people to secret prisons in other countries, but the other countries said we could?" That's a grade school excuse. Where's some of that legendary fear-mongering these folks have honed into a fine art form?

"The intelligence so gathered has stopped terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives in Europe as well as in the United States and other countries. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives. It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries."

Nice countries you've got over there, Europe. Very historical. Lots of nice buildings. It'd be a shame if something... weren't prevented from happening to them.

Of course, let's remember that the last time anyone crowed about the ten, count 'em, ten terrorist attacks we've thwarted in the past four years, two of 'em were Jose Padilla, who they just drastically reduced the charges on, and Iyman Faris, who thought about blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge, but decided it was too much trouble.

Four more were guys looking at stuff to see if they could be blown up. Not actually trying, just scoping the place. And this is coming from the White House's own "fact" sheet, which contains no specifics. So under the absolute best circumstances, assuming everything they tell us is true, they've actually stopped four terror attacks in four years by abandoning most of the human rights principles we claim to defend. And one of them was bomb attacks against unspecified urban targets in London. I guess they would have gotten it twice if it weren't for testicle electrodes.

But what do I know? I'm probably just misunderstanding things.