CIA Prisons in Europe (Follow Up)

Just a follow up to our discussion a few weeks ago about the fall-out in Europe caused by allegations of secret CIA prisons in some EU member nations. According the Washington Post, the EU is taking this very seriously and has recently "formally raised the issue" with the White House and State Department. The Council of Europe is conducting investigations into the presence of these camps in Europe, as well as additional allegations concerning the CIA's illegal use of European airports/illegal fly-overs of European countries. The EU is threatening a suspension of voting rights for any nation found to be complicit in the operation of these camps.

For its part, the US has said it "needs more time" to formulate a response to these allegations. Whether that means it is conducting its own investigation, developing a suitable cover story, and/or crapping in its short pants remains to be seen.

What struck me the most, however, was the justification given by the EU for the threatened suspension of voting rights:

"Frattini said suspending EU voting rights would be justified under the EU treaty, which stipulates that the bloc is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and that a persistent breach of these principles can be punished...Clandestine detention centers would violate the European Convention on Human Rights."

Not to beat a dead horse, but how are these different than our own basic, democratic principles? Some may argue that a government has to do some dirty things in order to preserve the security and freedom of its people. But, at what cost? Seems like a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. We claim we're fighting terrorism and making the world safe for democracy and freedom. But, in the process, we're becoming that which we would condemn. I don't think that's worth any price. Even in the murky world of intelligence gathering, basic morality must still be preserved. There are certain things that are right or wrong, regardless of context.

And here's just another thought: what kind/quality of information can you really get through torture? It seems to me that information given under duress would be highly unreliable. A person being tortured would probably just say whatever he thought his captors wanted to hear to make it stop. To me, torture seems like an attempt to cut corners or, in other words, to avoid the hard work of gathering ground level intelligence, analyzing leads and tips, etc.