U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan criticized Bush's policies for fighting terrorism, particularly his administration's controversial practices of secret detention and transferring prisoners to other countries for interrogation, which the White House refers to as "extraordinary rendition."
Without naming the United States, Annan condemned the way the fight against terrorism was "used as a pretext to abridge or abrogate fundamental human rights, thereby ceding moral ground to the terrorists and helping them find new recruits."
-- LAT Coverage of Bush UN Speech
A few interesting responses* to a separate posting of my "war" musings from last time ... I also see that at the very end, when mentioning how "rational" the administration policy should be judged to be (i.e., not very much) that I might have been better off saying "reasonable." Earlier, I mentioned how few things tend to be totally irrational -- and the Bush policy is not really that, if we determine what the particular goals in a given situation might be. This is open to some debate, but it surely is not "reasonable," as the word is looked upon by the "reality based community."**
[A group that apparently doesn't include the editors of the NY Daily News who -- apparently tongue completely out of cheek -- had a headline "George W Bush: Voice of America" today respecting his UN remarks. A family newspaper shouldn't scare young children like that. The fact it is scary that he is our "voice" underlines how opposition cannot simply be based on their practical failures.
Sure, there is overlap, but we have no right to torture guilty people either. Simply put, there is a basic moral difference and view of how our government should be ran that stands out as well. If that isn't enough, and I guess it doesn't for many people, it surely is part of the case against BushCo.]
Thus, yes, there is some rationale for being strongly for the discretion to torture and (even they can't think the call for "clarity" -- from these people? -- is supposed to be taken seriously) even though it has no chance of getting through Congress ... noises about "compromise" on the point is already out there. It isn't "reasonable" in the sense that the world now sees what our leaders want to do, and very well might continue to do (especially if habeas is stripped from foreign detainees ... dare not call them "enemy" prisoners, since many will not have real hearings), even if Congress does clearly reaffirm that we must not do so. Sort of the worst of possible worlds.
But, it is rational to further his own particular plan, including being able to say he supported some sort of "compromise" [especially as to allowing indefinite detention without any shadow of actual due process ... hey, we aren't talking large numbers here, right? or errors?] that protects executive power (something for Cheney too) while "protecting" us in the process. Did I tell you how much I find the man distasteful?
Seems like every time I go online, his face is on the "AOL News" panel. Skeeves me out, honestly.
---
* I was particularly honored to have Fritz thank me -- he is well known on the Fray for his erudite remarks. But, generally speaking, there were several good responses. I appreciate it.
** Some have noted the claims of ED having Clintonian bursts of reading, reading something like sixty books so far this year or something. One book on the list apparently is The Stranger, which is believable. It is more of a novella though it is French. I picked up a copy and the back cover mentioned it explores "the nakedness of man faced with the absurd."
Sounds about right. Likewise, "an ordinary man ... unwittingly gets drawn into a senseless murder." Well, some of that is right. The translator's remarks also mentioned its simple narrative and the tough guy notions of the lead. Again ... I can't say what he learnt from it, but hey, I think the big guy actually could have read this one.