Rendition

When the United States's political and military leaders decide to pass a prisoner to a foreign government, why do they do so? Do they do so because, as spokesmen for the United States government claim, foreign governments possess linguistic and cultural skills that enable them to better understand prisoners? Do they do so with confidence in the formal agreement that these prisoners will not be tortured?

When the New York Times quotes Nabil Fahmy, the Egyptian ambassador to the United States, as saying, "We do interrogations based on our understanding of the culture. We're not in the business of torturing anyone," perhaps the New York Times should also quote the following passage found on the United States Department of State website:

The Government [of Egypt] respected human rights in some areas; however, its record was poor, and in many areas serious problems remained. [. . .] The security forces continued to mistreat and torture prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, hold detainees in prolonged pretrial detention, and occasionally engage in mass arrests. Local police killed, tortured, and otherwise abused both criminal suspects and other persons. [. . .] (http://tinyurl.com/b4py4)

I have to wonder, when the United States government founds claims about connections between Iraq and international terrorist groups on the testimony of a prisoner remanded to Egyptian custody, whether the government is hoping that a certain kind of material will result from interrogations carried out by a country with a "poor" human rights record.

Please see this excellent article: http://tinyurl.com/dgnoy

For my birthday

I'd like a day without anger (my own, that is).

The Paris story

It's progressing.