Europe's terror chief in human rights warning

By Andrew Bounds in Brussels
Updated: 23 minutes ago

... "National governments need to look again at their mechanisms for scrutiny and oversight of their intelligence services and the activities of third countries on their territory," <the European Union's departing anti-terrorism co-ordinator> said. <Gijs de Vries> said there should also be more control of foreign flights, such as those operated by the US Central Intelligence Agency, over EU airspace.

"Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, military commissions and CIA renditions have undermined the credibility of the US and its partners," the Dutchman said.

Unless the US returned to a mainstream view of human rights, there was little hope of preventing a new generation of fundamentalists growing up.

"We have to stop today's terrorists and we must also prevent tomorrow's terrorists being radicalised." That could only be done by more inclusive social policies and a commitment to the values of free speech and the rule of law, he said ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17191785/

Hey, now there's an idea. Let's get some of that right here in the USA!

Seriously, why should it be a surprise to anyone that certain people have it in for the USA when we prop up corrupt regimes and plunder so much of the world?

it is not human rights abuses of America that created the current generation of fundamentalists. And what the hell is a non-radicalized terrorist?

(A sympathizer?...)

.. is a "terrorist sympathizer"? If you have any evidence of that, do feel free to share it.

Similarly, I find no evidence that this fellow said anything like "human rights abuses of America .. created the current generation of fundamentalists" but if you have such evidence, then let's see it.

When the fellow speaks of keeping the next generation of terrorists from becoming radicalized, presumably he means that there is some process by which people become terrorists. Most humans don't gleefully kill others, -- and among those that do, we might find certain biographical risk factors, such as foreign occupation, disillusionment or despair. Is it your contention that recent American war-making, extraordinary rendition, and human rights violations are unlikely to affect the numbers of our potential future enemies?

I quote.

"We have to stop today's terrorists and we must also prevent tomorrow's terrorists being radicalised." That could only be done by more inclusive social policies and a commitment to the values of free speech and the rule of law, he said ...
--

I was asking what the hell a non-radicalized terrorist is. It doesn't compute in my English very well.

But you, accusing me of suspecting that this man is a terrorist sympathizer, um NO, I'm asking rhetorically, what is a non-radicalized terrorist? A sympathizer perhaps? If so, why not just CALL them that?....

If you want a contention from me, it's that Arab governments torturing their own people has done a lot more to radicalize them than anything the US has done to their own populations. (Edit: Toning my volume down because this is purely based on a misunderstanding and it's not worth angst.)

radicalised" in my third paragraph above: presumably there are stages in developing a willingness to engage in terrorist, and then at some point, having passed some tipping point, a person becomes willing to kill others for political reasons. I might prefer say "converted" (instead of "radicalized") to describe the final stages of such a process.

Regarding your final point: Torture in Iran under the Shah was done by SAVAK -- but since the US had installed and supported the Shah, Iranian public opinion (fairly or otherwise) certainly held the US responsible. If the US kidnaps people around the world and ship them off to be tortured in Egypt or Syria (say), you don't think people in Egypt or Syria will regard the US as responsible, whenever their own friends or family are tortured?

to stand up and say that European countries and the US are losing credibility and this is leading to radicalizing a new generation of terrorists, which is ridiculous on its face because they weren't radicalized we would have no reason to call them terrorists to begin with as I see it (but this is not an important complaint), and NOT mention Arab countries and their human rights abuses is to chew out the trees while ignoring the forest.

Point taken on SAVAK, but the Islamist regime in Iran has had plenty of time to muck things up on its own and Iran has a very young population according to demographics so collective memory of SAVAK is probably low by now. Of course the US bombing the country now will do LOTS to radicalize the population... but that has nothing to do with torture. Like I said, trees over forest.

I still think this official was implying that the US was responsible for radicalizing the current generation of terrorists through SAVAK and whatever. No he didn't say it outright. Didn't have to. I just think the answer's incomplete. For instance, in more recent times, the Iran-Iraq War inflicted far greater long term wounds on the Iranian population and is far deeper a part of the cultural landscape than SAVAK. But at any rate, I repeat my first point for completion: I'm NOT a fan of human rights abuses, completely apart from how broad or not their real term results might be for longer term US strategic interests. I oppose them largely because they are wrong, not because lack of them (by the US) will magically make the world into a place where terrorists are not radical.