4. The rendition, abduction and detention of terrorist suspects have always taken place outside the territory of the United States, where such actions would no doubt have been ruled unlawful and unconstitutional. Obviously, these actions are also unacceptable under the laws of European countries, who nonetheless tolerated them or colluded actively in carrying them out. This export of illegal activities overseas is all the more shocking in that it shows fundamental contempt for the countries on whose territories it was decided to commit the relevant acts. The fact that the measures only apply to non-American citizens is just as disturbing: it reflects a kind of “legal apartheid” and an exaggerated sense of superiority. Once again, the blame does not lie solely with the Americans but also, above all, with European political leaders who have knowingly acquiesced in this state of affairs.
Lets say I agree with the above statement. Would I be incorrect in assuming that the author is taking a slap at European bureaucrats? In essence, anyone with a need to know, would be violating some sort of OPSEC to argue against anything sensitive within this study. Describing, "a kind of 'legal apartheid'" would be just an opinion and an oxymoron that cannot exist. It is either legal or illegal. If it is "a kind of legal...", than it must be legal. And what exactly is an, "exaggerated sense of superiority" since the author added that statement to the oxymoron? To view the statement realistically as truth would actually be erroneously describing insecurity of one's authority, which would be nearly impossible for multiple free allied nations to get off the ground. Just how many people suffering from insecurity of authority does it take to successfully fulfill the author's accusations? For those of us without a need to know this study would be a nicely wrapped package for us to agree or disagree with the nature of the study. Nothing more and nothing less. The study is a locution producing an incongruous effect on those of us that may disagree with it and a warm fuzzy feeling for those of us that do agree with it. Which part of the previous sentence sounds more logical with less nonsense?
Bookmarks