Last night my in-laws took my kids and Brian‘s kids down the street to a hotel to get high on all the partially hydrogenated oil, Red #40 and high fructose corn syrup they could bring over on the plane from Texas. And to swim.
Becky and I went to Redneck Neighbor‘s favorite restaurant, then to Blockbuster. Becky and I, if we get to see a movie at home, watch it on my laptop in my office so the kids won’t be disturbed. But last night we watched on a real live television set with the couch pulled away from the wall and plopped just four feet from the screen. Our television seemed to glow a bit more than usual – happiness I think – thankful to be channeling something besides Dora The Explorer through itself. I’d like to think.
We watched P.S. I Love You – yet another American made romantic flick starring a good-looking guy with muscles and an accent. Halfway through, long about the time the second good-looking Irish guy with muscles and an accent joins the plot, Becky blurts out, as if possessed and unable to keep the words in, as if forgetting I’m right there beside her, “I want to move to Ireland.” I bet she does.
But we’ve been to Ireland. Twice. And we saw lots of green grass and sheep and lots of guys with accents drinking Guinness, but none were all that muscled and most of them were a bit pale to be honest. Nice but a bit a pale. And she has a bit pale at home, right here in Tennessee, so…I guess what I’m saying is the whole movie made me a bit insecure about my lack of muscles and accent and sheep and Irishness and general romanticness. Of course in chick clicks “romantic” is unprofessional (usually a musician of some sort) and a little unclean (usually tossled hair, stubble, t-shirt and jeans) and a little flaky (usually a musician of some sort). And, hey, she’s got that already so why move to Ireland? All I need are a few more candles around the house, abs and other muscles, a tan, and someone to write clever dialogue for me like “Every morning I still wake up and the first thing I want to do is to see your face.” I’ll work on that.
Next, we watched Rendition. (I know, two movies. It was a crazy partay of a night.) I didn’t know a thing about this movie, neither did Becky, but it had some big stars in it and the box said it was a “thriller” so we grabbed it. We didn’t know it would grab us. It was disturbing, mostly because we knew the events in it were dramatizations of real acts of rendition. Rendition is a policy that was initiated by the Clinton administration. Rendition is a political word for “kidnapping.” Individuals who are potential threats to the United States or linked to people who are potential threats to the United States can be kidnapped and taken to not-so-secret secret prisons around the world in places like Morocco and Guantanamo without oversight by the judicial system. In other words, there is no warrant issued, no proof of connection to our enemies required, no notification of arrest made to the family of the detainee, no trial, no law.
The rendition policy is said to have been created as a way of combatting terrorism, detaining potential terrorist threats. But the policy has evolved. It now is believed by some to entail not only detention but also torture. The film raises important questions about the effectiveness of the program: Will a tortured starved man say anything to stop the abuse? Is anything he says trustworthy? And ethical questions: What is torture? Is the torture of the innocent with the guilty an act of terrorism? Is the death and torture of the innocent an acceptable price for U.S. security? Questions about the wisdom of torturing one’s enemies and concealing it: Does the kidnapping and torture of thousands create more enemies than it destroys? And questions about our form of government: Can our elected officials – the most wealthy and powerful supported by the wealthiest and most powerful – ever be trusted to act in the best interests of anyone but the most wealthy and powerful? If the son of a wealthy and powerful American who contributes to political campaigns were to be kidnapped in an airport and sent to Morocco to be starved and electrocuted, would rendition be stopped by Congress?
One special feature on the DVD was a documentary called Outlawed. It’s not very good. And it tells the story of only two men who’ve been allegedly tortured and imprisoned without trial by the U.S. government in secret prisons. And there are holes in the story and we’re only hearing their side of it. But even the little bit of information it provides on our rendition policy is disturbing enough I think to test the trust of the most patriotic citizen among us. The simple question I went to bed with was this: Is the best way to combat a violent unethical enemy to behave as violently and unethically as he does? That’s not what I teach my kids about how to treat bullies. But then, I can hear some of you typing soon, my kids aren’t being blown up on the playground. Not yet.
Weird date night to say the least. Weird world.
Kyle says:
So was P.S. I Love You a good movie?? You never really said…you were just too upset over the lack of muscle I believe?
http://www.vagabondrunn.wordpress.com
Noelle says:
I’ve kind of boy-cotted chick-flicks. All they do is create discontent. As for the other movie, I’ll have to check it out. (Thanks for helping me spend money.
)
Katherine says:
Ditto on boycotting chick-flicks.
As far as Rendition… why have I always been under the impression that that practice started under Dubya? Have we seriously been doing this even longer?
Oh, and do you have know of any sources/ info we could check out if we opt out of the disturbing movie?
Todd says:
“why have I always been under the impression that that practice started under Dubya?”
Not to get all right-wing conservative on ya, but that’s because it’s certainly the impression that’s been…um…impressed upon us by the media. While Bush has taken flack for the program (while Clinton has remained spotless) it certainly wasn’t original to him.
I don’t know why I felt compelled to go all conservative with my first comment on Shlog for a few months. Sorry.
Oh, and I do hate the program. While it may have helped us avoid more terror attacks on our soil, I can’t really fathom the terror it’s causing on our soul.
You can use that in a song if you want.
Kent Kingery says:
For more about the practice of “extraordinary rendition”, you can start with Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States
And yes, it has been around since the Clinton administration. See the quote from none other than Richard Clarke in the Wikipedia article.
boomama says:
“abs and other muscles” made me laugh out loud. So did Todd’s comment.
And I was just having a conversation with my husband about how screwed up the world is. I get all teary-eyed when I think about it. For real.
Cali Amy says:
Our government has a history of doing a lot of really awful things and it goes farther back than just this rendition thing. And yes, it’s probably mostly to protect the wealthy and powerful. But, we live in the benefit of it…think cheap sugar.
Our government is not God.
I kind of liked PS I Love You. Though there were some strange parts to it.
Shaun Groves says:
1. I liked P.S. I Love You. But I lost my mancard a long time ago so I’m not sure, guys, that my opinion should carry much weight.
2. I miss you and your comments, Todd. Come back soon and often.
3. Boomama, I’ve been oscillating between teary-eyed and angry and re-inspired since I came back from the Dominican Republic. Bad timing for seeing this movie.
4. Cali Amy, make no mistake, I love this country, it’s people and even it’s government. But I’ve been disappointed as of late with the sinister ramifications of some of our well-intentioned decisions. And feeling a bit guilty, to be honest, with how much I’ve benefitted from those decisions and therefore not cared too much until recently to know the details of those decisions. That makes me culpable doesn’t it?
Linda Sue says:
I don’t like chick flicks – I never ever on my very best day looked like any of the women in these movies. It makes me uncomfortable that my partner in watching even SEES women who are so pefect. So I totally understand your desire for abs and other muscles. Don’t move to Ireland – they have Bono already. We need you here.
About Rendition and untrustworthy governments – I will jump on that june bug by saying: people in this country choose their government – everyone has a chance to put up or shut up. No I’m not crazy about many of the policies of this country. How to change for the better? PRAY “come Lord Jesus” “thy kingdom come” – ‘cause human institutions stink. I dislike some policies of this country but the USA is not the boogey man -not sparkling clean but how many places do you get to make a movie criticizing your government and not get renditioned for doing it? Somehow renditioned sounds like they make soap out of you. Glad to see Sophie putting her bit in – Shaun – it is hard to walk the razor’s edge of being faithful to God’s laws and living in a fallen world. Thanks for another thought provoker. Man I’m on a rant today – bloggity madness.
Grovesfan says:
“About Rendition and untrustworthy governments – I will jump on that june bug by saying: people in this country choose their government – everyone has a chance to put up or shut up.”
This is not entirely true. While most citizens in this country 18 years or older have the right to vote, they don’t necessarily get to choose their government. I will have to say that the majority of decisions made and votes tallied by elected officials in the US government do NOT really reflect the mindset of most Americans. “Polls” state that 87% of Americans consider themselves to be Christian. Yet, how many debates have we had recently over “separation of church and state” (which is NOT in the US Constitution anywhere by the way) or the removal of the Ten Commandments from government buildings, etc. The list could go on for miles. I’m not against my government or my country either. Not by a long shot. I’m a combat veteran and married to a 21 year career Air Force MSgt. My father and grandfather both served as did my father in law and two brothers-in-law and too many uncles to count. I’ve been known to cry during the National Anthem. I’m just saying my government, while it “governs” me, doesn’t reflect my views and values in many cases.
As for chick flicks, depends n the mood I’m in.
And Shaun? Becky loves you for that muscle between your ears and the fact that your biceps are big enough to decorate cool cakes and wrestle with three beautiful kids.
Beth
chicago_joe says:
“Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
Thomas Jefferson
Shawn Bashor says:
Shaun,
if I may encourage you to see “Taxi Cab To The Darkside,” I can say that it was both a well made documentary and also re-affirmed my sadness at what we (America) have done for the sake of “national security.” I was very sad, disturbing, and frustrating. I recommend it but warn that it is very hard to watch in the sense of a lot of “why’s?”
MamasBoy says:
“In other words, there is no warrant issued, no proof of connection to our enemies required, no notification of arrest made to the family of the detainee, no trial, no law”
Typical US law does not apply to our own soldiers, let alone foreign soldiers. US soldiers have no right to a trial by jury if they break the military code of conduct. Military law is very different from civilian law. Detainment without warrants, without the same burden of proof as in domestic detainment, with long delayed trials and without notification of arrest to family has been practiced since well before the Clinton years for foreign military prisoners, probably since the Revolutionary War itself. The applying of this to terror suspects may be limited to more modern times, but when NGOs bomb our military barracks and naval vessels, that is to be expected. To say that these people are being held without law is a bit of a stretch since they are subject (in theory) to treaties on the treatment of wartime prisoners and to military law (though I will grant that one could argue that is practically the case when people are denied access to military judicial systems for extended periods of time without good reason).
Because of the crossover between military and civilian police action in the fight against terrorist organizations, it is good to clarify when people fall into the military and civilian categories. It is also good to question our military about its tactics to make sure they fall within the bounds of our treaties and natural law. However, we should be careful to not expect our military to abide by the same rules as our domestic police units. Conducting a war is very different from routine domestic police action. That’s why police officers can quit at any time and soldiers can be sent to jail (and worse) for desertion. It isn’t just foreigners that lose the rights civilians have when they come in contact with military law. Our own soldiers lose many of the same rights when they enlist.
MB
Shaun Groves says:
Shawn, when I first “met” you on-line – here I think it was – your attitude toward the government and the war seemed to be different than it seems to be now. Am I right? What changed for you, a man who served in our military, to have a shift in perspective like this…if I’m right in perceiving that one has occurred?
Is that too personal to ask?
Shaun Groves says:
MB, it’s late so I’m not certain I’m understanding your comment as well as I will in the morning but…
Am I to understand that you are referring to those detained under the rendition policy to be military? If so, that is incorrect. Those detained are sometimes (often?) civilians by every measure. Since no link to terrorist states or activities has to be proven to anyone before a “snatch” is made, there is no way to ensure that every detainee is tied to terrorism in any way or to a terrorist state in any way.
Then we have the problem of defining “military” and “state” in this war on terror. Is Bin Laden the leader of a country? Do his fighters and followers constitute a military? This is a war unlike any other we have fought so the terms are difficult to define in traditional ways aren’t they? It’s understandably tempting to define our enemies from moment to moment in the whichever way most effectively exonerates us from the any accusation of treaty or law breaking at the time. But in reality, we may need entirely new definitions and rules don’t you think? The old ones seem ill-fitting now.
Shawn Bashor says:
Shaun,
In short I grew up. The convictions I have always have in a way have matured I suppose. Yes I was in the Army, Yes I willingly joined the Army…as a non-combatant, I was a medic.
I have been blessed by a friendship which I have developed with Jenn (who recently commented on your Canada blog, also by the way, if I may thank you for you having this blog, it in turned introduced me to an amazing woman which we can discuss later on) and her and I have had hours of debate and God has used this wonderful person in my life to help me grow in an area I am thankful for.
I have read a few books (most written by Mennonites and a couple by Ron Sider) which have helped me to see what pro-life really means in a Kingdom sense. So in short, your assessment of our initial “Getting to know one another on the blog” is partially correct.
Brant and I had a hour long argument about non-violence, pacivism, this evening on his back patio and it blessed me because it re-affirmed the convictions that God has strongly placed on my heart.
Oh and yes, God has used you in this proccess as well, so thanks for being who you are in Christ.
angie says:
Well, I have a couple of thoughts, so in paticulair order:

Our gov. is not perfect, yet it is by far the best one going.
Politicans for the most part don’t really care about the ‘common man’.
Rendition is probably not a great terroist deterent. And, let’s be very real and say that it also happens very rarely and you should never under any circumstance get your information from hollywood, about anything. Except of course fashion and you know, who to vote for.
I was in Wal Mart tonight and couldn’t bring myself to by the $1.88 bag of sugar.
Thanks for making me think Shaun!
Oh and BTW you should NEVER ‘go in after it’! That is just icky ( and yes that is a technical term!!)
Angie
MamasBoy says:
Shaun,
I wasn’t trying to comment on the specifics of US extraordinary rendition practices, because I haven’t studied it in detail. It is my understanding, though, that many (the vast majority?) of the people shuttled around the world to various prisons are known members of terrorist organizations (e.g., Taliban or Al Qaida) and were often caught in combat zones, though from my brief reading that is not always the case. Personally, I’m really skeptical of movies as a source of info, since they often twist/screw up the most basic facts. To give a noncontroversial example, Gladys Aylward was always vexed with how Hollywood twisted the facts in her biographical movie, The Inn of the Sixth Happiness. Movies are made to sell tickets first, and the truth comes a distant second to that goal.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to have a debate about what constitutes an enemy combatant and when somebody should enter the military justice system instead of the civilian justice system. Personally, I don’t think one needs to be a member of a foreign government’s military to be a member of a foreign militia and just as much an enemy combatant, but certainly accepting that premise then opens up the process to potential abuse and illegal detention of ordinary civilians if precautions aren’t taken.
The point of my earlier comment was to try and bring up the points that a) the lines are blurred with international terrorist organizations conducting large-scale attacks around the globe while posing as ordinary civilians and b) military judicial systems are very different from civilian judicial systems, even for Americans. Most people don’t understand that American troops don’t have a right to trial by jury when breaking the military code of conduct. I was seeking context and clarification, since I’ve yet (in my limited reading) run across somebody who criticized extraordinary rendition raise those points and muddy the waters. Since context often sets the tone of the debate, I find this problematic for informed discussion among people of differing perspectives.
To reiterate: in no way am I trying to justify illegal rendition of people whom we all agree are civilians. Also, I haven’t studied this enough, personally, to make up my mind regarding whether US practice passes muster overall. I was only trying to add overall context to the discussion. Because I work with and/or personally know numerous military and civilians involved in homeland defense and anti-terror/nuclear proliferation programs, I probably trust the military far more than you do. That said, there could certainly be some bad eggs out there, and those bad eggs could be dominant in this particular area.
It’s late. I hope that made sense.
MB
Shaun Groves says:
in no way am I trying to justify illegal rendition of people whom we all agree are civilians
The error in this statement, given the little bit of knowledge I have so far (and it’s not from movies), is that ALL kidnapping of potential or actual criminals without notification of the seized person’s government is illegal. Technically. I’m not saying that it should be, but it is. So, to justify rendition in any case for any reason is to justify ILLEGAL rendition. It’s all illegal.
Should it be?
Kyle says:
This blog has gotten way to personal for me to jump in at this point. I just wanted to know if P.S. I love you was a good movie.
And yes Shaun, it’s okay to be in touch with your emotional side when it comes to movies. I’m a fan of all types…including movies like The Holiday. Just promise not to tell anyone please.
http://www.vagabondrunn.wordpress.com
shaunfan says:
It’s interesting how the women commentors for the most part are stating a “ban” of chick flicks and the guys (all admirers of Gerard Butler, perhaps?-I know I am after seeing him in both “Phantom of the Opera” and “300″) are asking if “P.S. I Love You” is a good movie. The cast intrigues me the most, the aforementioned Irish “hunky” Gerard Butler and Hilary Swank and I admit I’ve like everything she’s ever done (“Freedom Writers”, “Million Dollar Baby”, even “The Next Karate Kid”).
By the way, Kyle, I also like “The Holiday” as it features Kate Winslet, who along with Hilary Swank are my 2 favorite actresses.
Todd says:
Going a bit old school, I would say that Love Actually is the best chick-flick ever written. It’s so good, it’s in my top-five-favorite-movies-of-all-time list. Aside from some pointless (but relatively sweet) nudity, it’s sublime.
Oh, and I also like fishing, hunting and beer.
Shaun Groves says:
Yes, but you use words like “sublime.”
Todd says:
Yeah, my manliness is of a more subtle sort. No need to be a blatant Eldredgesque manly man, right?
Grovesfan says:
I can’t agree with the statement by MB that “US soldiers have no right to a trial by jury if they break the military code of conduct.” This is not true at all. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is vast, but very strict. All military members who are alleged to have committed a crime are in fact entitled and do get a trial by a jury of their peers unless THEY opt for a judgement. Their peers are exactly that too. Fellow military members. Enlisted members are required to have so many enlisted members in their jury as well as on the judgement panel. I’ve been involved with a couple of military trials during my active duty tenure and know this to be true. Our military isn’t perfect either, but the system does work. The military judicial system works much better and much more fairly than our civilian one does most of the time. Our civil system is just plain overloaded to be effective sometimes. Another debate for another time.
Beth
Cali Amy says:
Shaun…your point number four in response to me is EXACTLY how I’ve been feeling lately. Guilty. I’m not sure that came across in my comment. I enjoy the benefit of living here, but until the last few years have been ignorant about the cost to others. I don’t have any solutions, either. I almost said something about how that’s how I’ve been feeling, but didn’t want to invite a bunch of comments about my fragile psychological state…or worse yet, no response at all.
Funny enough, I really like chick flicks. I’m a single girl is that why? Am I still hoping for my happily ever after? I never compare myself to the women on screen, except our thought processes…I just like to laugh and feel good.
MamasBoy says:
Shaun,
“ALL kidnapping of potential or actual criminals without notification of the seized person’s government is illegal.”
I would be surprised to learn that the US government is not informing the arrestees’ governments. The other governments may not admit involvement in these practices for PR purposes, or may give multiple contradictory stories about the level of knowledge (e.g., the UK), but I would wager that all of the countries concerned know what is going on at the classified level. Many governments have admitted to knowing about this and have motivation to participate (e.g., we are using extraordinary rendition to return members of Al Qaeda who are Egyptians by birth back to Egypt for questioning).
Beth/grovesfan,
You wrote, “All military members who are alleged to have committed a crime are in fact entitled and do get a trial by a jury of their peers unless THEY opt for a judgement.”
I spoke with another person today about a military member’s right to a trial by jury. They were more familiar with the details than me (e.g., the difference in how spies and people posing as civilians contrary to the rules of engagement get treated under military law relative to uniformed military P.O.W.s). I will stand by my assertion that what you state above is incorrect. Also, I would recommend reading the following article on the fifth ammendment and specifically searching for Solorio, as in “Solorio v. United States”
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt5.html
The above article explains that military members do not have a right to a grand jury or trial by jury, even when the crime committed is *not* service related. I tutor math for a JAG’s son tonight, so I will inquire further.
MB
Shaun Groves says:
I would be surprised to learn that the US government is not informing the arrestees’ governments.
Surprise!
Grovesfan says:
I haven’t read the article mentioned above as yet, but having in fact served on a military jury and also being a witness in another military trial, I can assure you they do in fact exist. They may work a bit differently than the civilian court system, but they are there. There are both JAGs and ADCs as well who serve the military justice system.
Beth
MamasBoy says:
Beth/grovesfan,
Before I reply, I would ask that you read the referenced article, especially as it applies to the right to a grand jury and a trial by jury for military personnel. I think we may be disagreeing over semantics to an extent, and that would likely help clear it up.
Shaun,
I think you may have misunderstood me. When I say I would be surprised to learn of _______, I am referring to reading about it from reputable sources, not an unsourced assertion in a blog. As nice as you are [and as nice as I am
], I don’t consider either of us to be reputable sources about such matters on our word alone. You could be correct, and if that is true then our government should stop the practice. However, nothing in this thread has been offered of proof of the assertion.
MB
Shaun Groves says:
MB, I don’t consider my blog all that reputable either. Understood. So I wasn’t saying you should be surprised by what’s posted here so far.
One source of surprising proof was offered already by Kent though…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States
Wikipedia in and of itself may not count as reputable, but within the article are footnotes to reputable sources, and quotes from those sources.
Worth a read. Curious how reputable you, and obviously intelligent individual with more knowledge regarding the military and legalities pertaining to this whole issue, find those sources and quotes to be. Let me know.
MamasBoy says:
Shaun,
Thanks for the link. I will try to read more about it this weekend.
MB
MamasBoy says:
Shaun,
Mother’s day weekend was a crappy time to try and read up on this. I’m still wading through lots of info.
My initial reading of the article was for evidence of whether or not arrestee’s governments were being informed of the CIA operations, if they were not themselves participating in the actual arrests. I had said I would be quite surprised to learn that such lack of cooperation was going on and you seemed to think that the wikipedia article would provide proof to the contrary.
Having read a bit more on the topic, it appears to me that the governments were informed, even when there is a very rare case that they deny it. This also appears to be the opinion of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Report (or something like that). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_01_06_detention.pdf
Specifically, paragraph 66-68 and 46. Interestingly enough, the case against foreign goverments knowing what happened seems to be made primarily on the basis of the case of an Italian guy (paragraph 68). This, however, appears in my estimation (and arguably that of the report) to be a case of Italian authorities not communicating, as the report acknowledges in paragraph 46 that the “official” Italian government denial of knowing about CIA actions is implausible given the close ties of the governments at the time of the arrest and total lack of a sharp response afterwards.
This was the only source that I was able to read with any depth on the question of whether the arrestees countries were being informed, as was suggested earlier. I picked it because I figured it would be less polluted by US political machinations, while at the same time being critical of the US, since they are composed primarily of unelected political appointees of a federation that has been highly critical of the US in the past.
Regarding the overall program, there were charges of torture by other countries with US complicity, which if true would be highly problematic to say the least. The US has officially denied it and the guilt is mostly by association (where we send the prisoners), but guilt by association isn’t always to be dismissed. In my opinion, the report seemed to make the case that such occurrences are certainly plausible, if not actual. It certainly bears further looking into, and is a very serious charge.
Other charges the report raised, didn’t make sense to me at all. For instance, the report questioned the legality of secret CIA detention facilities (which were often no more than a borrowed room in a foreign country). This seems weird to me. Are we supposed to publicize where our CIA prisons are, even if they are a borrowed room? That seems stupid, since it would could compromise the secrecy of CIA operations, and the CIA doesn’t exactly operate like a publicly traded company complying with Sarbanes-Oxley.
Surprisingly to me, the European Council report did delve into internal US politics, noting that many people are questioning the legality of the warrantless wiretapping of international phonecalls placed on US soil, since it straddles the clearly legal and the clearly illegal territory and seems to have been used by our government. I found that discussion too brief (and selective) to do more than suggest wrongdoing by innuendo concerning indeterminate legal issues completely outside the jurisdiction of the European Council (paragraphs 58 and 59). Even though the report came from the C of E, it still strikes me as lacking in the professionalism one expects from an report of this type.
I hope I didn’t bore you to death with the long response. I’m a details kind of guy and only posted the latest because you asked (yeah, we all know you should have kept your mouth shut there). Honestly, I never know how to take requests like that. I’ve come back in the past to engage in real dialog and come back to have someone blast me for still questioning their ideas. Given, that you are a Compassion employee who issues what I consider to be “reputable” reports on poverty in lives of people in the third world, I think its probably a safe bet that you are in the sincere camp when you ask me to read up and get back on my take on something. I hope I leave you with the same impression.
Anyway, if you run across any articles on this that you find especially convincing, feel free to post the links here. I should get them via new post e-mail notification and will try to read them.
MB