Re: The human face of rendition

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:36:42 +1000, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Dr Zen <longhornster@xxxxxxxxx> instead replied:

>Ray Haddad <rhaddad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gave the sermon. Those who could
>keep their eyes open remember it thus:
>
>>On 20 Dec 2005 07:00:30 -0800, I said, "Pick a card, any card" and
>>"chris_tine49@xxxxxxxxxxx" <chris.editrix@xxxxxxxxx> instead
>>replied:
>>
>>>Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wait for evidence, Zen. I don't convict people in my mind by using
>>>> hysteria. I'll wait and see about your poor German auto salesman.
>>>
>>>Not referring to this particular case (I don't know anything about it)
>>>but to others, how does the accused produce evidence when he's accused
>>>on the basis of illegally or shadily obtained information (which
>>>conveniently isn't admissable in court, should he ever arrive there,
>>>not charged, he's detained by someone other than his local police,
>>>incarcerated in a distant place, interrogated and kept by
>>>subcontractors, and denied due process of the law?
>>
>>According to his testimony, given to a reporter and told to us
>>second hand (hearsay), he had no idea who kidnapped him or held him
>>until his captors, not the kidnappers, actually told them they were
>>American. According to him, he was being held outside of the US and
>>that fact was used to deny him access to the courts. The reporter
>>actually did more interpolation than reporting which is why I
>>discount the story for the moment.
>
>It was "in his own words", idiot. The reporter just transcribed. In
>these cases, unlike in American interrogations, the person interviewed
>gets to read what they sign.

Partly in his own words, Zen. Come on, now. You're enjoying playing
the moron too much here. It doesn't suit you.

>>>But it gets so sticky, doesn't it? Whose law? Our law, which we hold up
>>>as a shining model, or the law of the land in which he's detained?
>>
>>I agree, Christine. The problem is that neither the reporter nor the
>>victim can accurately say where he was.
>
>So what? Does it matter where he was?

Because if any part of his story is proven by facts or evidence to
be wrong, the rest needs closer scrutiny. Why do you deny the need
for real evidence over hearsay? Would you convict Mrs Zen on
hearsay? You seem willing to convict the CIA based on that.

>You do know that Condi Rice has apologised to the Germans for doing
>it? Maybe you don't. You're laughing your fat arse off at the notion
>that he might be telling the truth, but Condi's already put her hand
>up for it.

She did no such thing. Here's the quote from your bound and gagged
salesman: " I still do not know why this happened to me. I have been
told that the American secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice,
confirmed in a meeting with the German chancellor that my case was a
"mistake" ? and that American officials later denied that she said
this."

He has been told?

Later denied that she said it?

>> He was told he was in one
>>place being held by Americans but that may not be anything more than
>>misinformation given to him while he was held captive.
>
>Yeah, because there are just so many other people kidnapping people
>off the street and flying them around the world.
>
>You're a fucking ***, Ray. Why would anyone *fake* a rendition when
>America has been doing so fucking many of its own, which it freely
>admits to?

For the same reason that you go to such lengths to use hearsay to
pound another nail into your America bashing wall. When the evidence
and facts point to this story being true, I will change my
perspective and join you in condemning the deed. Until then, I
prefer to be a real, thinking human being not one driven to fantasy
about the CIA like you.

>>>I'm not sure what kind of hysteria you refer to. I have some experience
>>>with refugees from countries with repressive regimes (the US is
>>>looking more and more like one of those). A fair portion of them have
>>>survived torture or had/have family members who were killed or tortured
>>>or both.
>>
>>I've had more than my share of direct contact with such people
>>myself, Christine. They hysteria to which I refer is the froth that
>>the reporter is attempting to whip up by retelling the victim's
>>story with embellishments to suit his personal conclusions rather
>>than seeking evidence.
>
>It's in al-Masri's own words. Did you not read the byline, idiot?

Yes, I did. Did you read the text? Can you not determine what was
written in his own words and what was not?

>>Mind you, it's not his job to seek evidence
>>but he must bear the responsibility for working poor Zen into a
>>lather based on his tweaking of the testimony.
>
>Naughty world. It's *all* lying about America.

You deny that it could be so? Oh, naive boy, you have a lot to
learn.

>>>They seldom mention to health providers that they've been tortured, so
>>>unless there's obvious physical evidence, they may not get the care
>>>they need.
>>>
>>>When folks come forward, it's usually to try to prevent others from
>>>undergoing the same experience, not for self-gain.
>>
>>I have never questioned your moral stand, Christine, and I
>>understand here what you are trying to get across. It's not
>>incongruent with any other argument either of us has put forth but
>>it doesn't fit my decision to wait until the evidence is fully
>>presented regarding this incident before I personally condemn anyone
>>for the deed.
>
>IOW, "hope it goes away and never have to admit my nation are
>torturers".

Come on, Zen. When real evidence is presented, I'll be right there
with you. I promise.
--
Ray
.