Benatta and Nicole (his lawyer) featured on Caravan.

Interview with Benamar Benatta and his lawyer; featured on Canada’s “Caravan”.

Thanks to Ben and also Nicole, they mentioned this site’s URL.

Stay tuned because I’d like to include the entire hour long show. Right now though, I just wanted to post the part of the show that related to Ben.

Feel free to comment on what you thought of the show.

We are also tossing our ideas to and fro; as it pertains to getting registered members to participate in discussions. But there are many ways you can help. And we think we may have found a way in which everyone (not solely members of this site, but other as well) can help out.

Stay tuned.

One Response to 'Benatta and Nicole (his lawyer) featured on Caravan.'

  1. I find it to be the most pernicious and brutal form of coercion that the FBI told Benamar Benatta during interrogations that unless he confessed he would be executed. But that if he confessed (to a crime he did not commit) they would be “kind” and only imprison him for life. Gee, thanks fellas.

    Is that even legal? We already know that the United States is and has been outsourcing torture. But apparently they didn’t bother to do that in Brooklyn’s Abu Ghraib, that black hole that Benatta suffered through.

    Also, why are we calling it Extraordinary Rendition? I realize that’s the government’s term for this operation. But do we, as citizens, have to use this appalling euphemism? Why are we going along with their newspeak? Why don’t we call it what it is: kidnapping.

    Well. Here’s something from the ACLU:

    …the extraordinary rendition program is illegal. It is clearly prohibited by the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States in 1992, and by congressionally enacted policy giving effect to CAT. As Congress made clear, it is the policy of the United States not to:

    expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*