4 ms·

So they are violating the law of the "land", by literally going to different land. This sounds a lot like corporate/beaurocratic cover-your-ass policy that is

So they are violating the law of the "land", by literally going to different land. This sounds a lot like corporate/beaurocratic cover-your-ass policy that is there so you don't get fired. It just seems to me that someone like the CIA could torture in some basement in area-51 and they would still be untouchable. In a weird way this kinda speaks a bit to the power of the constitution or the respect that it holds. Even if you are basically violating it.

stordoff 9y ago
I wonder if it's more logistical than legal - extraordinary rendition, by its nature, already exists outside of the law. It is, however, easier to hide someone outside of the country (from legal representatives etc.) and deny their existence, it's easier to hide the facilities, and it's easier to find skilled and willing practitioners of torture in a country which practices it more widely (boy, that's a fun thought :/). It's also face-saving to some extent - it lets the leadership say "We do not torture" accurately and with a straight face, and I believe it's _slightly_ less risky legally (knowing torture is likely rather than actively ordering). That said, I've no doubt some government agency could use torture with impunity on US soil though (especially when you consider local police forces have come somewhat close to doing exactly that. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department#Homan_Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department#Homa... ).
- oldsklgdfth 9y ago
  The whole thing is just so absurd and a little ridiculous. It's like some spy novel narrative where they can just burn money and fly around the world to torture a handful of people for information. It would be more reasonable if it was done with a roll of duck tape at a random motel-6 in the middle of nowhere.

4 ms·

So they are violating the law of the "land", by literally going to different land. This sounds a lot like corporate/beaurocratic cover-your-ass policy that is

by oldsklgdfth 9y ago

stordoff 9y ago
I wonder if it's more logistical than legal - extraordinary rendition, by its nature, already exists outside of the law. It is, however, easier to hide someone outside of the country (from legal representatives etc.) and deny their existence, it's easier to hide the facilities, and it's easier to find skilled and willing practitioners of torture in a country which practices it more widely (boy, that's a fun thought :/). It's also face-saving to some extent - it lets the leadership say "We do not torture" accurately and with a straight face, and I believe it's _slightly_ less risky legally (knowing torture is likely rather than actively ordering). That said, I've no doubt some government agency could use torture with impunity on US soil though (especially when you consider local police forces have come somewhat close to doing exactly that. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department#Homan_Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Police_Department#Homa... ).
- oldsklgdfth 9y ago
  The whole thing is just so absurd and a little ridiculous. It's like some spy novel narrative where they can just burn money and fly around the world to torture a handful of people for information. It would be more reasonable if it was done with a roll of duck tape at a random motel-6 in the middle of nowhere.