home

Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror Suspects

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:16:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, staying true to his roots, defends the Administrations rendition program - flying detainees to countries that practice torture for interrogation by the C.I.A. TBogg writes:

If a detainee, being tortured to death after "extraordinary rendition" to a foreign country, screams, and Alberto Gonzales doesn't hear him, did he really die?

Gonzales doublespeak, from the news article:

Monday:

Gonzales, speaking to reporters at the Justice Department yesterday, said that U.S. policy is not to send detainees "to countries where we believe or we know that they're going to be tortured."

At his January confirmation hearing:

That represents a slight modification of his congressional testimony in January that renditions would not be made to countries where it is "more likely than not" they will be tortured.

Monday:

Gonzales added yesterday that if a country has a history of torture, Washington seeks additional assurances that it will not be used against the transferred detainee.

At the same time, he said, the administration "can't fully control" what other nations do, according to accounts of his remarks by wire services. He added that he does not know whether countries have always complied with their promises.

So, leopards don't change their spots, after all.

< Army Recruiting Falling On Hard Times | 500,000 Answer Hezbollah Call, Protest in Lebanon >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror Suspects | 44 comments (44 topical)
    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    This administration is for torture, they just don't like to say it out loud knowing there will be backlash. The memo re: torture should be pulled out again and Gonzales should have to stand up and explain himself. Like that'll happen.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    Look, either we allow torture on US soil, or we continue with these renditions. One way or another, we cannot take any information gathering techniques off the table with thousands of US lives which may be at stake. And don't tell me torture techniques don't produce results. Clinton started this in the '90s pre-9/11, so that tells you right there there is a value in this. P.S. this post is dedicated to my new best friend Ian.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    Torquemada would be so proud of Alberto.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:01:56 PM EST
    There's a word we use for people who throw away their principles to keep themselves safe.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    This administration is for torture, they just don't like to say it out loud knowing there will be backlash. There's no question this is true, as was it true under the Clinton administration. No choice folks. If it comes down to torturing one person (for the purposes of getting information), or saving thousands of American lives, what are you going to choose? Love ya Ian....

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    MB, Can you show me proof that torture works? It's my understanding that when someone is tortured they will say anything to stop being tortured. I'm not saying we should not have any interregation methods. I'm just asking that we, as a nation, stop justifying torture.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#7)
    by selise on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    "There's a word we use for people who throw away their principles to keep themselves safe." cowards

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:14:21 PM EST
    If they aren't going for the torture, why are they being sent? They can certainly be sent to any number of places where they won't be tortured.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    Trust me, if you give me Alberto Gonzales for 2 weeks I can make him say George "cheapshot crybaby" Bush is the antichrist

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:16:43 PM EST
    MB, Can you show me proof that torture works? It's my understanding that when someone is tortured they will say anything to stop being tortured. I'm not saying we should not have any interregation methods. I'm just asking that we, as a nation, stop justifying torture. Here's my proof (and this is my 4th post of the day, so I can't comment any further beyond this). 1) the CIA agent stated that valubable information had been received via the rendition policy (on 60 minutes). Do I know that involved torture techniques? No, he didn't say that. But I think that's a fair inference of why suspects were being flown to their native countries and not being investigated in the US or in the 3rd country where they were picked up. 2) Clinton started this policy in the 90's. A democrat President in a pre/911 era. If not to get the value of torture info, then why? Again, I think all other methods should be used first, but I would never, never take any method off the table when thousands or millions of Americans of lives are at potentially at risk.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:22:10 PM EST
    Coming Soon to a government near yours. Expansion of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy to rendition proceedings. Apparently, while some of you crow "Clinton did it too", so did Bush Sr. However the program was "greatly expanded" under G.W. to include a number of people who were kidnapped off the streets, secretly transported to third-world countries, tortured and then released without charges. Instead of the strawman argument posed by MB:
    No choice folks. If it comes down to torturing one person (for the purposes of getting information), or saving thousands of American lives, what are you going to choose?
    we should be examining whether - if it comes down to depriving dozens or hundreds of innocent Americans of their most basic rights to possibly get info that may at some point possibly contribute to our safety and well being - which would we choose. MB, be honest. Would you be happy spending a few months/years getting tortured in Uzbekistan if you knew that they are probably rounding up some really bad guys along with you? If you are willing to make this sacrifice for your country then I at least commend your commitment to your values, which, BTW, I don't share.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:23:28 PM EST
    MB, thanks for acknowledging the four post limit.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    I don't know why it was started. To me it's a hypacritical for the US to condemn other nations for regularly using torture and then turn around and either do it ourselves or to send prisoners to countries that practice it. Either we are against it or not. If not, then we no longer can claim a moral authority over anyone.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#14)
    by Andreas on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    MB wrote: "I would never, never take any method off the table when thousands or millions of Americans of lives are at potentially at risk." That is the argument of terrorism. The regime in the White House threatens billions of people. If your argument were correct then killing a few million Americans to save a billion lives would also be correct.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#15)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    How come straight shooting Republicans never say what they really mean or believe?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:35:31 PM EST
    All those detainees in gitmo and rumors of thousands of others at "undisclosed locations" and still no Bin Laden. Torture works I guess.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 01:44:05 PM EST
    To say that its about protecting or saving American lives is overly simplistic at best; its also about preserving a deeply undemocratic,highly aggresive foreign policy tradition that ultimately places more Americans in harms way-generally the more expendable ones-and further the enriches the insatiable members of Club Bush.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#18)
    by theologicus on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    Three random points: 1. The NYT finally came through today with an editorial against extraordinary rendition called "Torture by Proxy." 2. Four recent administration appointments -- Gonzales, Negroponte, Chertoff and Goss -- are clearly soft on torture. 3. There a troubling article at antiwar.com today: The End of the Right to Counsel? by Scott Horton.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    "No choice folks. If it comes down to torturing one person (for the purposes of getting information), or saving thousands of American lives, what are you going to choose?" Damn straight, there IS no choice in that situation, MB-if it ever arises, which isn't very likely. Mark 8:35-6--"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Or is that too much "moral clarity" for you?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    the one thing I never hear answered...it's okay for us to torture our enemies, so it must be okay for our enemies to torture our soldiers and countrymen? The enemy has to get answers to what we are planning so they are allowed to torture our people (before they cut off their heads)?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 03:06:40 PM EST
    Or is that too much "moral clarity" for you
    it's "moral values" absent clarity actually; quite foggy and hypocritical to boot. glade i resolve, with my bestest(sic) attempts, to treat all humans as i would have them treat me. that's sunday school stuff; you'd think a born again knows this.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    I was in the Israeli Army for 6 years before being asked to join Mossad. As someone who used torture on a regular basis (we don't have interference from Human Rights groups as you do) I'm here to tell you that valuable information is extracted often, these who say it produces no valuable info are lying or not good at what they do. Your rendition program was developed under Bill Clinton. No one mentions Israel, but we too are part of rendition program. Any of you ever set foot in an american prison???? What you call torture happens everyday on regular basis, it's not in your face and you choose not to look. But its there. If you're not happy with rendition, put your subjects into Rikers Island or San Quentin. You people talk from both sides of your mouth!

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    In addition to the fact (yes, fact) that torture is inhumane and violates the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights (to which the U.S. is a signatory) and the Geneva conventions (to which the U.S. is also a signatory), prior to 2000 (GW Bush's first administration)previous U.S. Justice Dept. public policies pertaining to "non-covert" actions of the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies and military operations did not overtly condone "torture." That doesn't mean that torture did not occur as a result of U.S. practices (both in this country and abroad); it means that torture is is not considered either morally or legally acceptable in humane civil (civilized) societies. During the Gonzales confirmation controversy, I thought that lawyers should have come out far more uniformly and strongly than they did during the Gonzales "confirmation" (coronation) hearings to oppose his nomination. But, fearing an even-worse nominee than Gonzales, they deferred their opposition to future Supreme Court nominations. Now they are being forced to confront what everyone already knew about Gonzales before, again. He should never have been confirmed in the first place.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    I also agree with the following posted by Steve A.
    Can you show me proof that torture works? It's my understanding that when someone is tortured they will say anything to stop being tortured. . . . [W]e, as a nation, stop justifying torture.
    That was precisely former Clinton Att'y Gen'l Janet Reno's point on Real Time with Bill Mahr this week. (Still being repeated on HBO.) Maybe sometimes "torture works" (to extract information), but, as Reno attests, perhaps more frequently, it doesn't. Former Attorney General Janet Reno also alluded to the "golden rule" of the Geneva conventions--don't do to others what you don't want done to you; there is a practical as well as a moral reason for not torturing one's enemies. It condones torture and then they torture you. By allowing our current Attorney General to continue rendition, we in effect justify (and, vicariously, sanction and therefore participate in) the future possible "rendition" and torture of our own soldiers. (That's the "selfish" vs. the "altruistic" argument against it; I favor arguments against torture as a matter of both principle and practice, ethical ["moral"] and legal.)

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Mar 08, 2005 at 04:32:59 PM EST
    Hey guys, What are the odds you guys can get Clinton to stop hanging out at the White House? He's playing golf with senior and making goo goo eyes at dubya. Take him back.....please. It's creeping me out the way he follows dubya around to see how a real statesmen acts. Weird!!!! Mark W......still the PRESIDENT REAGAN on RUSHMORE

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#27)
    by theologicus on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    To rea: Mark 8:35-36 is clearly lost on some people. Hebrews 13:3 will not reach them, either, but you might like to know of the NRSV translation, if you don't already: Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured, as though you yourselves were being tortured.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    avi, what percentage of torture suspects produced NO useful information? what percentage DID produce useful information? give me numbers, or give me a break. israel is a white european nation in the middle of the barely post-colonial brown skinned middle east. a middle-east the west has helped keep in shackles as long as we've needed their oil. honesty, imagination, and being a standup human being will you (and all of us) much more in the long run. if you're so worried about security, national and global, you should be calling for the elimination of ALL nuclear weapons, since they are the only devices capable of the kind of all-encompassing destruction that will really destroy the world. peace, my friend.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    honesty, imagination, and being a standup human being will you (and all of us) much more in the long run. if you're so worried about security, national and global, you should be calling for the elimination of ALL nuclear weapons, Ok, Earth to Dadler, do you read us? Earth to Dadler.... Why don't we worry about the world as it is Dadler. Nuclear weapons exisit, and they're not going away. So, with that being said, I think we should realize that there may be times when all forms of interrogation are necessary. As Avi confirms, all forms of interrogation may lead to results. In the nuclear age, there is simply no way we can flat out say there are certain things we won't do to get info. That is why the rendition program is so good. We (left and right) should all be in favor of the rendition program.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 11:24:18 AM EST
    One of the only ways to prevent 911 would have been to TORTURE BUSH off his vacation.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 12:26:32 PM EST
    MB, First off, I have no idea who Avi really is. So until I see some actual proof, i will stand by my statement that all torture is evil and the US has no business participating in torture or sending prisoners to contries that do. I also believe that torturing puts our soldiers in further danger. Personally, I would like to see them treated well. But what incentive do we give the "enemy combantants" to treat our soldiers well when we have shown no problem with torturing prisoners we capture? Is the "information" obtained from torture worth the torture of our soldiers?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 01:01:19 PM EST
    m.b., i guess we, as human beings/free americans, just have no control over anything -- be it our inventions, our conduct, money, none of it. it all just falls out of the sky, like so much rain, and we just have to scramble to do whatever we can, immoral or not, to react to the gods' will. if we had leadership with a lick of creativity, humility, freedom cultivated self-critical ability, maybe we'd not have so easily surrendered imagination to violence.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    You people talk from both sides of your mouth!
    yes we do, the left side and the right side. AVI: sounds like a troll aka; mark not creative enough, mb, dogma, some other for sure, post reeks of their trollish tactics.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 02:09:24 PM EST
    Steve A The Geneva Convention clearly delineates who is a lawfull and who is an unlawfull combatant. In the invation of Iraq, all Iraki Soldiers wearing the uniform of their country, were accorded all due protection under the Convention. We did so for many reasons, one of which is to protect our own soldiers from torture upon capture. The same Convention clearly stipulates who is an unlawfull combatant. They are not accorded to the protection of the convention. As such, can be shot on the spot without further quibble. It is heartless, but that is the ugly face of war

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    MB, First off, I have no idea who Avi really is. So until I see some actual proof, i will stand by my statement that all torture is evil and the US has no business participating in torture or sending prisoners to contries that do. Come on people, be fair. If you live in the US like I do, you're just as much at risk as I. Can we all not agree that the scenario exisits where iterrogaters would have to get information by any means necessary to potentially save thousands of lives? Stop saying, torture is bad, we're better than that, etc. Nobody thinks torture is good. Nobody is pro-torture. It's just a question, if a method of interrogation can lead to the massive saving of lives, then don't preclude it. Now if that means such interrogations must take outside the US (renditions), then so be it. Isn't that a good middle ground for all of us? Your collective concience is going to get me, and you, and all of us killed, and that cannot happen. Surely, even the left of the left of you must agree with me to some degree???

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    Is the "information" obtained from torture worth the torture of our soldiers? Obviously, the answer to this is yes. Why else would the rendition program exisit at all?

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 02:59:20 PM EST
    Bill Clinton and rendition: (just because O'Reilly or 60 minutes says it, does not mean it is accurate or in proper context) By contrast, The New York Times reported on March 6 that the Clinton administration enforced much greater oversight and tighter restrictions on renditions and generally used the practice to allow suspects to face criminal prosecutions, rather than solely to undergo interrogation: Before Sept. 11, the C.I.A. had been authorized by presidential directives to carry out renditions, but under much more restrictive rules. In most instances in the past, the transfers of individual prisoners required review and approval by interagency groups led by the White House, and were usually authorized to bring prisoners to the United States or to other countries to face criminal charges. As part of its broad new latitude, current and former government officials say, the C.I.A. has been authorized to transfer prisoners to other countries solely for the purpose of detention and interrogation. Similarly, Jane Mayer reported in the February 14 edition of The New Yorker that the limited rendition program under President Clinton expanded after 9-11 "beyond recognition": Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognition -- becoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, "an abomination." What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects -- people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants -- came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms "illegal enemy combatants."

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#38)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 03:00:43 PM EST
    no-name, if torture is sometimes acceptable, then this nation should do it's own dirty work and be honest about it. come on, this hardly seems a logical extension of your own argument. and it makes rendition seem even more disgraceful and cowardly than it is. it's like a guy who hires another guy to beat is wife and take the blame. it is ALWAYS BETTER to stand up and take responsibility. when would you teach your child to do differently. if we want to torture a particular suspect, because we believe he has unique information that could save lives, then announce when he will begin to be tortured and announce the results. or is it better to be a hypocritical giant? peace. pathetic. also, m.b. wrote: Why else would the rendition program exisit at all? hmm...lemme see. it exists because we'd rather not stand up and admit we approve of torture under certain circumstances; nor do we want to do it within our borders because that might cause p.r. problems. we want to hide it behind the actions of others and quibble about the exact definition of torture. pathetic again. if we were half the glorious nation we believe we are, we'd be safe until the sun burned out or a comet came through and took us out. instead, we're still playing the "whose dick is bigger?" game and think it the most important part of our anti-terror foreign policy.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 03:02:25 PM EST
    oops, sorry for creating a link where none exists. meant to hit italics instead.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    compliments of mediamatters.org

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 03:29:45 PM EST
    "Reagan on Rushmore" - Read Hitchens on "The Hedge Hog" - The only ones that "belong" on Rushmore are Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull you ignorant ditto-head.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Mar 09, 2005 at 07:46:12 PM EST
    Dadler I notice you didn't actually disagree with noname or MB; as such I think "pathetic" is a poor choice of words to charachterize their arguements. I myself found them "brutally rational" and "dead-on", not to mention "extremely persuasive". And I think you did too, just wish you were big enough to admit it. Jondee Just show some of that American perseverance and faith and in 3 years and we'll all be saying W on RUSHMORE

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 09:28:48 AM EST
    horse, i disagree with them completely. how is that, big man? if you couldn't tell i disagreed with them, i apologize, i'll make things crystal clear for you next time, and leave nothing to actually think about. what i also notice is you make no attempt to reply to what i actually said. instead, you turn MY language into your PATHETIC snipe. the very notion of rendition is empty hypocrisy for us. did your daddy teach you to hire thugs to do your thug work for you? or did he teach you to stand up like a man and take responsibility for your actions? sending "suspects" to be tortured in other countries, so we can maintain some kind of delusional innonence, is just tiny and, yes, PATHETIC.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 11:10:23 AM EST
    Dadler I agree with you - let's "interrogate" them here. I remind you that they are being sent abroad to protect YOUR terrorist-sympathising sensibilities, not MINE.

    Re: Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror S (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Mar 10, 2005 at 03:11:55 PM EST
    W on RUSHMORE
    You all can keep Dubya, Rummy, Reagan and Gonzales. We get :) Jeralyn, dadler and kdog. A great deal for us, IMHO. If Dubya was on Rushmore we'd need extra room for HIS TWO FACES. MB, I ask you again, are you willing to be rendered and tortured, although innocent, if you knew they were also getting "some really bad guys"? I'm for drafting war supporters first. Any volunteers. Avi: Baruch Hashem you seem relatively reasonable, but the ultimate end is compromise. Israel's right wing policies gave Bush his most recent playbook page, and Palestine has been Fallujah"ized". And for what? Safety? Apparently not. Oh, yeah. "Never Again" Bush found that mantra right up his alley. Not to sound cruel, but you'd better start torturing the Iranians, because the only real threat to Israel today is a Nuclear Warhead lobbed from Iran. Good Luck. Most of my Israeli friends are Anti-Sharon, anti-aggression and pretty liberal. Peace out.

    Alberto Gonzales Defends Rendition of Terror Suspects | 44 comments (44 topical)