CIA Interrogates and Abuses Children in the War on Terror
‹ Article Page

1. Pingback | Link #6845 ›

   CIA Interrogates and Abuses Children in the War on Terror » The Moderate Voice [...] Please click here to read more. [...]
2. Posted by C Stanley

   | Quote | Trackback | Link #6848 ›

   C Stanley This is truly reprehensible. I did a quick search and so far haven't seen any information reported about their release or any other ultimate outcome after they were detained. Can't imagine that they'd still be in custody now, but someone needs to find out what happened to them.
3. Posted by Pete Abel

   | Quote | Trackback | Link #6849 ›

   Pete Abel But there's no evidence the CIA abused the children, is there? I agree we need to be diligent, but if the CIA handled the situation respectfully, and made sure the children were well cared for, I don't know. Torture/abuse is one thing; it's wrong. Detention with proper care is entirely something else. Sorry, but I'm torn on this one. What am I missing?
4. Posted by mvdg

   | Quote | Trackback | Link #6838 ›

   mvdg Christine, the report in the Dutch newspaper says that they have been released by now, but I'm wondering when were they released exactly? I cannot find information about that. I am also trying to find more about how they were treated and about the other children who were taken prisoner. For instance:

   On March 28, 2003, Aafia Siddiqui (see page 16) was reportedly apprehended in Karachi, Pakistan along with her three children (then aged seven years, five years and six months).

   And:

   On July 24, 2004, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a detainee who the U.S. government has acknowledged was in the U.S. Secret Detention Program and is presently held at Guantánamo Bay, was reportedly apprehended in Gujarat, Pakistan, along with two women (his wife, an Uzbek national and the Pakistani wife of South African national Zubair Ismail) and five children. His apprehension was reportedly a joint Pakistani-U.S. operation, coordinated with CIA and FBI officials.
5. Posted by mvdg

   | Quote | Trackback | Link #6844 ›

   mvdg

   Detention with proper care is entirely something else. Sorry, but I’m torn on this one. What am I missing?

   Pete - I guess that some people consider it wrong for the US to hold children to put pressure on prisoners. Isn't that strange?
6. Posted by C Stanley

   | Quote | Trackback | Link #6841 ›

   C Stanley Pete, I don't think detention of innocent children is acceptable at all, even if they are cared for properly. It's clear that the CIA motive (they even stated so) was to use the children as leverage, not that they actually had information. I might be persuaded to think that family members should be permitted to be detained for questioning if there is reason to think that they will lead to a suspect (only under certain circumstances) but that's not what was going on here. And you have to wonder whether the detention in Pakistan (seems that they were held there for some six months before the CIA took them to the US, and it seems unlikely that the boys were cared for properly there) was condoned by the CIA. I'm disturbed by the general trend to allow other countries to practice unacceptable methods of detention and questioning while the US gives a wink and says that it was the other guys who did it, not us.
7. Posted by mvdg

   | Quote | Trackback | Link #6839 ›

   mvdg Exactly christine, very well said.
8. Posted by kritter

   | Quote | Trackback | Link #6835 ›

   kritter It was designed that way- to get around the moral and ethical qualms that Americans have with these kind of acts. That's why the CIA and administration came up with the idea of secret renditions in the first place. That way they never had to face public outcry and accountability. If any of it came to light, all they had to do was say that they were only doing what was necessary to keep Americans safe after 9/11. Because Bush refused to allow Americans to be tried for war crimes, the CIA is exempt from prosecution and penalties if tried in other countries. Currently, the Italians are trying 26 CIA agents in absentia for kidnapping and torturing an Egyptian male. But they have no authority to enforce anything.
9. Posted by oldcodger

   | Quote | Trackback | Link #6833 ›

   oldcodger Dumb and Dumber just got Dumberer. Good reporting. Nothing like taking an Al-Qa'ida sponsored story and turning it into NEWS. Blogs are like Cancer. The longer we blog the worse the infection becomes. Stories like this are perfect examples. The blogger is begging his readers to help him verify the story. Good job MVDG. I'm outta here. Not going to support this kind of nonsense blogging.
10. Posted by mvdg

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6831 ›

    mvdg Old Codger: I you believe that the US should kidnap the children of terrorism suspects, to hold them captive, as to put pressure on the suspect, well, that's your choice, but I firmly oppose that. And if that means that you do not wish to read my blog anymore, so be it. Byebye. And o, the CIA acknowledged they wereholding the children to put prssure on him.
11. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6829 ›

    C Stanley Michael, If you want an answer though to why there isn't more outrage over this in the US, oldcodger's comment is a good explanation. We're so divided that no one believes what is being reported and instead thinks it's the result of media bias or a political agenda. So, many conservatives see reports like this and don't believe them (partly because they don't want to believe it and partly because some reports of 'abuse' really have been built on pretty flimsy grounds). That's one side of the coin, and on the other you have liberals who don't believe that any reports on terrorist plots are real or that they're significant (putting us in danger of missing real threats) and don't believe any reports of positive developments in Iraq (making it impossible to have any hope for a positive outcome because all calculations in the estimation of those people have to be built on the view that there has been no progress at all no matter what we do). Each 'side' now completely distrusts the other.
12. Posted by Andy

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6809 ›

    Andy But Jack Bauer would shoot the kids and save America from a nucular bomb!
13. Posted by mvdg

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6811 ›

    mvdg Christine: both sides make me sick.
14. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6813 ›

    C Stanley I agree Michael but I can also understand the distrust to a degree. This is what I have been trying to get across for months, that when people exaggerate the criticisms or assign false motive (saying Bush lied instead of focusing on the facts of how intel was misinterpreted, for example), then the real criticisms aren't credible to people who need to be convinced that there is a problem. And likewise, of course, the administration shouldn't play up minor 'victories' for propaganda purposes because people see through that, and then nothing they report is credible any longer to certain people.
15. Posted by Laura

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6816 ›

    Laura Children are victims OF TERRORISM, not the war on terrorism. If this story is supposed to evoke sympathy and make me feel bad about my country, well it doesn't. Whatever is necessary to fight these monsters is fair game. islamic terrorists are evil and ruthless in their jihad, beheading Christian schoolgirls for example, so we need to be ruthless when fighting them. This terrorist's children will likely wind up as terrorists themselves.
16. Posted by Rudi

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6818 ›

    Rudi I guess it's OK for the US to use children as pawns or human shields. Atleast the Israelis courts put a stop to this.
17. Posted by mikkel

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6819 ›

    mikkel I believe it was in the One Percent Doctrine that said they threatened to kill the children if he didn't speak and he told them to go ahead and do it. I wasn't aware that they actually had them though.
18. Posted by Andy

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6821 ›

    Andy Thanks for the post, Laura. It makes me feel a lot better about my political views when the opposition supports torturing children.
19. Posted by Laura

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6823 ›

    Laura "Do you really expect Europeans to defend and to support you if you do not respect human rights?" ------------------------------------------------- I expect Europe to fight terrorism because its in their own interests, not as a favor to us.
20. Posted by mvdg

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6825 ›

    mvdg Nice Laura. Keep it up, I'd say and before you know it's true: "America Alone." Mikkel: nice huh?
21. Posted by kritter

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6827 ›

    kritter First of all there is a parallel universe now in left wing and right wing reporting- which has replaced reality. Even if you are still nonpartisan enough to concern yourself with finding out the truth and not just each "side's" version of it, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do. Misinformation abounds, and BOTH sides use dangerous rhetoric to overstate their case. Some of it is visible on this thread. CS BOTH sides overstate their case- not just the left. And the left is not always wrong to say that Bush lied. If torturing a suspected terrorist's children is what it means to be an American, than everything that was wonderful about being American is no longer valid. Being American should be what you stand for, not what you are willing to do to keep your sorry hide in one piece. The terrorists can destroy us from within, by changing us into a nation that adheres to no international standards, that has given into our fears. That is why I resist the right-wing's insistance that if we don't do a certain action the terrorists will be at our doorstep. If we allow what happened on 9/11 to change us in this way, it won't really matter if they attack us again or not.
22. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6807 ›

    C Stanley

    CS BOTH sides overstate their case- not just the left. And the left is not always wrong to say that Bush lied.

    On the first sentence, I think that's what I said, Kim, so I don't know why you're scolding me over it LOL On the second part: yes, they are wrong to say this because they can't prove that he lied and that is such a serious charge that you have to have some proof of intent, not just that he stated things which were shown later to not be true. If he was stating what he'd been told by others (whose job it was to vet the intel) then he didn't lie. I'm not saying that I know 100% that he hasn't deliberately lied, but without some evidence one just shouldn't say that. If anything, you could make the case about Cheney because there have been multiple times when he's said things that had already been proven to be false- but I haven't seen the same degree of twisting facts from Bush.
23. Posted by mikkel

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6805 ›

    mikkel I feel a need to chip in and say that I've never understood why people care about intent in mistruths. I'd rather have a liar at the helm that adjusts when the policy doesn't work than an honest but completely wrong and stubborn person. In fact, in my own life if I say something and it turns out to not be true often times I say "I'm sorry I lied" even though it was just a mistake...as long as I feel that I should reasonably have known that I was wrong. This is for two reasons: I care more about being truthful than anything so I see little functional difference and also if it's something I'm passionate about then it's natural to miss contradictory evidence even subconsciously. If I had been Bush I might have come to the same conclusion he did with the evidence but I'd still consider it a lie because my best interpretation was wrong (and there was more than enough evidence to be cautious).
24. Posted by kritter

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6804 ›

    kritter CS- You were upset that he lied yourself --about Rumsfeld's firing after the election. There is plenty of proof, but if you are in the frame of mind that you don't believe it you won't see it. Cheney has lied as well- that's why they have no credibility left-even in their own party. Next you'll be telling me Gonzales and Libby just really do have bad memories. I don't believe that because of malice towards the administration but because of contradictory interviews on news shows that were replayed on Meet the Press and Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room.
25. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6795 ›

    C Stanley I disagree with you Mikkel (well, I can't disagree since you're expressing your own feelings and you are the only authority on that :-) ) But I think very few people feel the way you do because knowing that someone has intentionally misled you means that you can no longer trust him. So from then on, whatever he says has no credibility as you analyze it and think, "OK, this time is he saying what he really believes to be true, or is he lying again because he feels there is some overriding reason to justify a lie again?" I do agree that the stubborness and inability to adjust to errors is equally damaging, but I think the separate issue of trust (which derives from knowing someone's intent) is also quite important.
26. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6798 ›

    C Stanley Kim, I was only talking about the more serious (in my mind) lie that he's accused of in ginning up the intel. Lies for political convenience I don't condone or like either, and you're right that I wasn't happy about the way he handled the Rumsfeld resignation. But that's in a different category altogether than a lie to lead the country to war on false pretenses.
27. Posted by kritter

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6800 ›

    kritter But if he'd lie for political expediency, he'd lie to ginn up the country for war, something he desperately wanted to do. There have been many reports that the most of the CIA opposed our entry into the war because they knew the intel was suspect, but the administration ignored all of the caveats. Just like the NIE from 2002 that was just released- showing that civil war and regional instability were PREDICTED before we got in. Bush always intoned that he was surprised at the insurgency after Saddam was removed. But, unless he and Cheney didn't read the NIE it was no surprise to them, just a predicted result.
28. Posted by mikkel

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6801 ›

    mikkel Haha CS your reaction further illustrates my point. Of course you want people to be honest and my explanation shouldn't be applied universally (like in the legal system). I argue it is impossible to know whether someone is lying or not about policy matters so the results are what should be judged. By focusing on honesty, I think it actually encourages liars to seek office because they know they can get away with things if they have enough charisma. Even if someone is honest, they are driven to try to convince people of that instead of critically thinking about how to change in the future. "I did my best and was honest about it" is good enough in day to day relationships, but not in the Presidency (in fact a lot of problems about government arise in the fact that people think about politicians in terms of their day to day viewpoints). In science, if someone is consistently wrong they are ignored even if they aren't doing it on purpose. On the flip side, even the best scientists are often wrong and have to learn how to accept it and adapt. Truman summed up what I'm talking about with "The Buck Stops Here."
29. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6793 ›

    C Stanley OK, I see your point more clearly now, Mikkel. Kim: From wikipedia, on the Senate Report on Prewar Intel:

    In terms of pressure on analysts, the Committee said that after 9/11, "analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11." The Committee concluded that this resulted in assessments that were "bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links," and that this pressure was more the result of analysts' own desire to be as thorough as possible, than of any undue influence by the administration, for which the Committee said they found no evidence. Several Democratic members of the Committee said in the report's "additional views" that the question had not been adequately explored.

    So, are we going to place any credibility on these bipartisan inquiries/reports, or shall we just cherry pick the parts that support our partisan agendas?
30. Posted by domajot

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6791 ›

    domajot Well. this thread explains why there is no public outrage about kidnapped children. We are too busy hating and defending Bush. As to the original post, my response is to wonder where have all you outraged people been? Children have been imprisoned as part of the WOT from the beginning. There are film clips of children behind barbed wire in Iraq in the early days of the war. Arresting children and keeping them detained along with a shepherd father suspected of misdeeds is different from kidnapping them later only by a matter of degrees, not class of activity. America lost its soul at the very beginning, and judging from the arguments, the soul will remain lost for some time to come. Someone will point out, I'm sure,how children can be terrorists and how terrorists can misuse our system. However, it's up to us to choose how to respond in difficult situations. It's up to us to draw the line in the sand which we won't cross. No enemy, no event can make that choice for us. Understand mistakes? yes. Forgive some mistakes? yes Abdicate responsibility? never.
31. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6789 ›

    C Stanley Doma, I agree with you but I've never seen the videotape that you refer to (and I do think the circumstances matter: were these children who were held in a particular area in order to protect them and avoid having them become collateral casualties, for instance?) If it seemed as though I was defending the lack of outrage by changing the tract of the conversation, that was not my intent. I was pointing out that it is a sad state of affairs in our country, that we can't face up to these issues because half of the country doesn't believe that they're happening and the other half believes that they're happening to the degree that we've turned into Nazi Germany (I'm exaggerating those positions, of course, to make a point). I'm trying to say that the distrust allows people to deny things that mustn't be ignored or denied.
32. Posted by mvdg

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6785 ›

    mvdg Doma I agree with your comment although, like Christine, I wonder about the videos? Christine: point well taken. In the meantime, did anyone find more information?
33. Posted by oldcodger

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6787 ›

    oldcodger http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayksmcapture
34. Posted by domajot

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6781 ›

    domajot CS and MVDG- What I refer to specifically is not a vews video but part of a documentary by a woman journalist (I don't remember the name) shown on PBS There are frequent references to the children caught up in the war throughout normal news commentary, only no one pays attention.
35. Posted by mvdg

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6783 ›

    mvdg I don't have PBS, but I also never saw children being taken prisoner in that regard. Caught up in the war, yes, but in what way? As in actually taken prisoner by the CIA, taken to a prison, where they are interrogated for months and used as a means to put pressure on their father?
36. Posted by domajot

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6779 ›

    domajot The documentary I saw was made by a woman who lived with an Iraqi family. The Iraqi man had access to detention centers through his job. There were very young boys behind barbed wire, but US guards were quick to shoo the filmmaker away. That's just it, MVDG. Secrecy is part of the game plan. Secrecy creates conspiracies theories. Secrecy creates a situation where the truth becomes as suspect as lies. Even if I could track down this documentary, you might ask: "Well, how do I know it's not a hoax?" The whole atmosphere in America has been poisoned. I can only testify to what I know.
37. Posted by mvdg

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6775 ›

    mvdg Doma, I'm not questioning your memory, I'm only asking because you said that everybody knew, that there was enough video material out there, etc.
38. Posted by domajot

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6777 ›

    domajot Just how is keeping children in detention for months and years as a result of some accidental incident generically different than placing there on purpose? I doubt a child can understand all the subtleties of political debate, MVDG.
39. Posted by Pete Abel

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6773 ›

    Pete Abel Wow, this post has generated some noise. I do appreciate those who layered in on my earlier comment, and after further thought, and assuming the facts we have are correct, I have to side with C Stanley's conclusion, here: http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/06/08/cia-interrogates-and-abuses-children-in-the-war-on-terror/#comment-8969.
40. Posted by Laura

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6771 ›

    Laura So this is according to another terrorist inmate making these accusations, and yet you believe it. Did you ever stop to question the validity of these accusations? I thought you had more sense than that Michael.
41. Posted by kritter

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6769 ›

    kritter CS- Look, if I believed that is was just bad intel, then I would say so. I'm not coming out with this position because I don't like Bush(I admit I don't)or because he's a Republican. But I won't be able to convince you because, it is a conclusion that I reached over a period of about 6 months, from many different sources. I actually think this is just as embarassing for the Democrats, because otherwise they'd be having more hearings on it. They know many voted for the war because it was right before an election, and they knew the vote was cast that way so that those who voted against it would look unpatriotic and soft on terrorism.
42. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6767 ›

    C Stanley Doma, The issue of kids caught up in the horrors of war is unquestionably tragic, but there's still a distinction between a government deliberately doing something harmful to kids and a government authorizing a war which inevitably affects them in terrible ways. I know there's reason to say that this particular war shouldn't have been authorized- but once it was, unfortunately we know that kids will be caught up in it. For me, I weighed that against the policy that was used prior to the war to contain Saddam, the sanctions, which also killed millions of kids and left many others in horrible conditions. That doesn't mean war is better, but I had hope that it would lead to something better for the Iraqi children. I certainly didn't expect my government to use them as pawns to coerce confessions.
43. Posted by domajot

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6765 ›

    domajot CS- I disagree with the notion that there is an important distincion between children deliberately kidnapped and children kept in detention because they happened to be with their father when the father was arrested. I hate, but can't help, asking why we should assume the reasons to be different .than in kidnappings? What could the reason be for keeping young boys in detention facilites for months and years on end? There is no way to know their fates or how, exactly, they were treated. That children have, indeed, been held in detention in Iraq was not only shown in the documentary I mentioned but has been referred to in several news dispatches from Iraq during regular news broadcasts. This part I believe. I understand why some of you would like proof of purposeful kidnappings and mistreatment. But how do you propose to get the proof? We are dealing with secret kidnappings, secret detention sites, secret passing of detainees from country to country and only god knows what other secret activities. If you come across an account, how do you propose to verify its veracity? That's the legacy of our method of waging the WOT. Once you leave the high road and go into the shadows, it's all reduced to accusations, denials, suspicions and contradictory snippets of information. Like Kim said, it has become impossible to tell the truth from lies. I doubt the CIA would video tape what they do. If a CIA agent made a public statement about kidnappings, other CiA people would only deny it. Eyewitnesses? How would you know the eyewitnesses aren't lying? What kind of proof do you expect to find? While you worry about proof, I despair over what we have lost, the most important being the ability to trust. It's tragic, but we are reduced to arguing over which account we blindly choose to believe. I go back, then, to worrying about children in detention, no matter how they got there.
44. Posted by C Stanley

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6764 ›

    C Stanley Again, no disagreement with you, Doma, about worrying about the children. I guess in some ways it brings to mind Israel: the fact that photos of some events which are tragic but not necessarily events for which Israel is culpable are regularly used as propaganda against Israel, to show her as the aggressor. So that's my concern- even when I accept your premise that the US government's secretive activities make our government suspect, I'm also convinced there is a tendency for charges against our government to be trumped up or even falsified. So in the end, I agree with you when you say that we really have no way of knowing the truth in many of these situations. As a result, you choose to believe the worst while my feeling is that the truth is probably in between the two extremes. I'm not sure it matters much though which interpretation we take- there is an objective truth whether or not we know all the details.
45. Pingback | Link #6852 ›

    A Terrorist’s Children, Leverage For Information « The Good Democrat [...] we supposed to be fighting AGAINST people like Mr. Yoo? Additionally Michael P.F. Van Der Galien is trying to find out what has happened to those children. To this point, he has not found any [...]
46. Posted by domajot

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6853 ›

    domajot CS- "you choose to believe the worst while my feeling is that the truth is probably in between the two extremes. " First, Google 'chldren detained in Iraq'. Among the many sources that are questionalble, there are statements from US military personnel, for example. Put together, I do believe that children have been detained among the regular adult detainees. Some US personnel have even given sworn statements about mistreatment. I hardly choose to believe the worst, since I can't tell what the worst is, What I am saying is that detaining children for long time periods is bad in itself. Not everything has to rise to the level or torture before it rises to the level of reprehensible or even just plain stupid. I doubt many of these children will come out of detention enamored with democracy or the US. Then, where will they be pledging their allegience? You are absolutely right about how many things are spun to discredit the US and Israel. I think, however, that some of our actions hand over material to be spun on a silver platter. Aside from that, we should not be complacent about what we do to destroy everything we have managed to stand for in the past. We should not be coomplacent about spreading the 'just caught up in the war' umbrella too readily. Collateral damage is unavoidable, but we should not become so complacent about it that we stop wondering about necessary and unnecessary collateral damage. It's up to us to define who we are, no matter what others say or do about it.
47. Posted by John Rohan

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6856 ›

    John Rohan I have a question here; Is there anyone on this list who actually has any experience in the CIA, with interrogations, in Iraq, or anything connected to the war on terror? First, this blog post is dishonest from the get-go. It claims that the CIA tortures and abuses children. Well, the only proof we have here is a source (anonymous, like all these other sources used by the media in their war against the war on terror) in a dutch article, and if you actually read it, it says the children were captured by the Pakistanis and mistreated at that time. They were later handed over to the Americans. So even if you believe this weak "evidence" it doesn't support the title of this article. Next, Mr. van der Galiën asks why there isn't a "massive movement" to do something about this. About what? For a massive movement, you need massive proof, or at least some proof, and there isn't any that the children have even been interrogated, much less tortured. Yes, certainly they have been held and questioned. It would be gross negligence to do otherwise (do police departments refuse to question children when looking for wanted parents?). But questioning is not the same thing as interrogating, which is not the same thing as torturing. Especially when discussing children, it is irresponsible to casually substitute these terms with one another. Finally, here is my guess, although its just a guess. You won't find anything on them because they are in some kind of witness protection program. Certainly Khalid Sheik Mohammed has a few enemies in the world, and for their own safety, the children can't just openly run the talk show circuit. Incidentally, I do have experience in the war on terror, and if you want to read more about this report, you can go to my blog here: http://shieldofachilles.blogspot.com/2007/06/andrew-sullivan-watch.html
48. Posted by daveinboca

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6857 ›

    daveinboca John Rohan is right. There is little or no evidence for all these allegations, which are being put forward anonymously as a massive disinformation campaign. Wonder if the MSM will find out who's behind it? Or do they really care? They probably wouldn't report it if they found out, as they are effectively working for and with America's enemies, including its internal ones.
49. Posted by domajot

    | Quote | Trackback | Link #6860 ›

    domajot "working for and with America’s enemies, including its internal ones" I would definitely agree about having internal threats, only I would be pointing to a different set of people. The biggest threat comes from those who stop caring how close we could come to be the mirror image of our enemies.
50. Pingback | Link #6861 ›

    The Ongoing “Disappearance” Of The Sense Of Perspective « Expat Yank [...] Mon 11 Jun 2007 The Ongoing “Disappearance” Of The Sense Of Perspective Posted by Robert under European Union , International law , I'm From An Advocacy Group And I'm Here To Help , Journalist-thought , Britain , Crime , USA , War on Terror , Human rights , Politics  As if we didn’t have enough trouble with the “renditioning adults” (if we are) issue, Mr MvdG tells us of Amnesty’s and HRW’s arguments regarding the increasing moral depravity demonstrated . . . if a CIA agent so much as raises his voice to a child: [...]