Bush is for torture, leaves renditions open as an option!

[EvilMonkey]

Oh wait, I am sorry, it is OBAMA that leaves renditions on the table, even the possability of expanding the program. So I guess Obama now supports torture! Come on now, all you peeps who b****ed and moaned when this was still available under Bush, let's hear your disappointment at Obama not removing this as an option as well. Or is it now suddenly ok? With the closing of Gitmo we now have 3 options when dealing with enemy captures in regards to terrorists. 1. Shoot them on the spot.

2. Put them through the American civilian judicial system. 3. Hand them off to somebody else. Or, we can ship them off to stay with John Murtha.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-renditio...8176,full.story

 

 

[Balta1701]

Sometimes I love you guys on the right and in the right wing media. You really don't make it all that hard.

In a breathless piece of reporting in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, we are told that Barack Obama “left intact” a “controversial counter-terrorism tool” called renditions. Moreover, the Times states, quoting unnamed “current and former U.S. intelligence figures,” Obama may actually be planning to expand the program. The report notes the existence of a European Parliament report condemning the practice, but states “the Obama Administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.”

 

The Los Angeles Times just got punked. Its description of the European Parliament’s report is not accurate. (Point of disclosure: I served as an expert witness in hearings leading to the report.) But that’s the least of its problems. It misses the difference between the renditions program, which has been around since the Bush 41 Administration at least (and arguably in some form even in the Reagan Administration) and the extraordinary renditions program which was introduced by Bush 43 and clearly shut down under an executive order issued by President Obama in his first week.

 

There are two fundamental distinctions between the programs. The extraordinary renditions program involved the operation of long-term detention facilities either by the CIA or by a cooperating host government together with the CIA, in which prisoners were held outside of the criminal justice system and otherwise unaccountable under law for extended periods of time. A central feature of this program was rendition to torture, namely that the prisoner was turned over to cooperating foreign governments with the full understanding that those governments would apply techniques that even the Bush Administration considers to be torture. This practice is a felony under current U.S. law, but was made a centerpiece of Bush counterterrorism policy.

 

The earlier renditions program regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture. There are legal and policy issues with the renditions program, but they are not in the same league as those surrounding extraordinary rendition. Moreover, Obama committed to shut down the extraordinary renditions program, and continuously made clear that this did not apply to the renditions program.

 

In the course of the last week we’ve seen a steady stream of efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down. These stories are regularly sourced to unnamed current or former CIA officials and have largely run in right-wing media outlets. However, now we see that even the Los Angeles Times can be taken for a ride.

2 programs, same word. One of them directly relates to torture, one of them involves grabbing people to bring them to trial. The grabbing people to bring them to international tribunals are left in tact. Because the word is the same, therefore, they both must be left in tact.

[Soxbadger]

He has abandoning those who helped make sure that he won, and people like me will not forget that.

 

The only legitimate argument I could see being made is that its the equivalent of being taken down to the Police Station for questioning and that they must be returned within X hours.

 

Even then it sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

If the US can kidnap foreign citizens, can foreign countries kidnap US citizens?

[lostfan]

He has abandoning those who helped make sure that he won, and people like me will not forget that.

 

The only legitimate argument I could see being made is that its the equivalent of being taken down to the Police Station for questioning and that they must be returned within X hours.

 

Even then it sets a very dangerous precedent.

If the US can kidnap foreign citizens, can foreign countries kidnap US citizens?

If they're terrorists and we're taking them to trial, why the f*** not? I'd certainly hope we could. Do Americans get arrested and tried in foreign courts? I'd think they do.

[Balta1701]

Even then it sets a very dangerous precedent.

 

If the US can kidnap foreign citizens, can foreign countries kidnap US citizens?

You could certainly argue that this program is wrong, and that it is the U.S. imperially imposing its will on other countries. But to suggest it's a continuation of the Extraordinary rendition program of the Bush Administration, where we capture people wherever and we ship them off to some prison that doesn't exist so that the CIA can torture them or we ship them to Egypt so they can do the dirty work for us is a joke.

 

Regarding your actual point, in a just world, there'd be no need for this program. In an unjust world, I'll judge on a case by case basis. For example, I can think of a number of Americans who I'd have no problem if a foreign government seized to bring to trial. Kissinger, Cheney, etc. On the other hand, I can think of a number of people who might have some sort of official government protection who I wouldn't mind at all if the U.S. got their hands on them and brought them to a legitimate tribunal. Bin Laden and company are an example there. As are the people running the show in Darfur.

[Soxbadger]

If they're terrorists and we're taking them to trial, why the f*** not? I'd certainly hope we could. Do Americans get arrested and tried in foreign courts? I'd think they do.

 

Im not sure you understand what rendition is.

 

Rendition means that the US goes into another country like Italy, kidnaps an Italian citizen and takes them to a third country for interrogation (such as Afghanistan.)

 

Do you think it would be okay for Italy to come to the United States, kidnap an US citizen, and take them to Cuba for questioning?

 

We are not getting the foreign countries approval, in fact we are usually doing it against the foreign countries wishes. There is no problem with Italy, arresting an Italian or giving the US permission to arrest a terrorist.

 

This is the US going into Italy either: A) Without Italy knowing or B ) With express instructions from Italy not to.

 

Balta,

 

I think there are all sorts of sovereignty rules and I dont think that the US has the right to kidnap foreign citizens unless they are given authorization from the foreign govt.

 

Would it be okay for Iran to send an operative to the US and kidnap US citizens for being "terrorists" against Iran?

 

Or would it be okay for Palestine to kidnap Israeli's for being "terrorists"?

 

If they get the countries permission that is fine, the problem is this is usually expressly against the countries orders, and these are countries like Italy.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2009 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

Im not sure you understand what rendition is.

 

Rendition means that the US goes into another country like Italy, kidnaps an Italian citizen and takes them to a third country for interrogation (such as Afghanistan.)

Or, takes them to the U.S. or another country to face a legitimate tribunal.

[lostfan]

Im not sure you understand what rendition is.

 

Rendition means that the US goes into another country like Italy, kidnaps an Italian citizen and takes them to a third country for interrogation (such as Afghanistan.)

 

Do you think it would be okay for Italy to come to the United States, kidnap an US citizen, and take them to Cuba for questioning?

 

We are not getting the foreign countries approval, in fact we are usually doing it against the foreign countries wishes. There is no problem with Italy, arresting an Italian or giving the US permission to arrest a terrorist.

 

This is the US going into Italy either: A) Without Italy knowing or B) With express instructions from Italy not to.

I know what it means, I gave bad examples. It's not as cut and dry as my comparisons made it sound. It really depends on the circumstances.

[Soxbadger]

Or, takes them to the U.S. or another country to face a legitimate tribunal.

 

Okay so why not rewrite the law that they can only be taken to the US, and they have to then be given the exact same rights a US citizen would be given?

 

Oh the reason they wont do that is because the entire point of rendition is to take them to secret holding facilities, so that they can scare them into talking.

 

These are people living on the street of European countries, this isnt BIN LADEN.

 

There is Interpol, this is the US taking people off the street who they deem "dangerous".

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1395637.ece

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=97980316

 

that the alleged CIA abduction compromised Italian anti-terror investigations and was a violation of Italian sovereignty.

 

This isnt ever going to be legitimate as long as the sovereign nation is not involved. And when the nation is involved, its not rendition.

 

Therefore Im against the policy of rendition in all circumstances where it is merely for the purpose of detaining and questioning.

 

I will leave a very small exception for cases such as Hitler, where if you were to have found him anywhere I believe that any country could validly bring him in and try him. But thats different, they actually would be taking Hitler to trial, most of these people are just being questioned for information about other people. These arent mass murders wanted by Interpol, Italy wouldnt care if we nabbed people like them, they start to care when we just arbitrarily take people.

 

Edited February 3, 2009 by Soxbadger

[BigSqwert]

Who feels a little silly now?

 

Panetta Confirmation Hearing: Obama's CIA Pick Says No More "Extraordinary Rendition"

PAMELA HESS | February 5, 2009 07:12 PM EST |

 

WASHINGTON — CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta assured senators Thursday that the Obama administration will not send prisoners to countries for torture or other treatment that violates U.S. values as he contended had occurred during the Bush presidency.

 

Panetta, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, later acknowledged that he does not know specifically what happened in the secret program allowing so-called "extraordinary rendition." CIA Director Michael Hayden has said that the Bush administration moved secret prisoners between countries for interrogation and incarceration, separate from the judicial system, fewer than 100 times.

 

Panetta said that President Barack Obama forbids what Panetta called "that kind of extraordinary rendition _ when we send someone for the purpose of torture or actions by another country that violate our human values."

 

"What happened I can't tell you specifically," he said later, "but clearly steps were taken that prompted this president to say those things ought not to happen again."

 

Rendition has been used by U.S. presidents for several decades; Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said the Clinton administration used it 80 times. However, Panetta said the difference is whether the prisoner is transferred to another government for prosecution in its judicial system or for secret interrogations that may lead to torture.

 

FULL ARTICLE

Edited February 6, 2009 by BigSqwert

[Texsox]

Oh wait, I am sorry, it is OBAMA that leaves renditions on the table, even the possability of expanding the program. So I guess Obama now supports torture! Come on now, all you peeps who b****ed and moaned when this was still available under Bush, let's hear your disappointment at Obama not removing this as an option as well. Or is it now suddenly ok? With the closing of Gitmo we now have 3 options when dealing with enemy captures in regards to terrorists. 1. Shoot them on the spot.

2. Put them through the American civilian judicial system. 3. Hand them off to somebody else. Or, we can ship them off to stay with John Murtha.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-renditio...8176,full.story

 

I CAN"T BELIEVE OBAMA IS DOING THAT!! I AM SO DISAPPOINTED!! I AM SICKENED AND OUTRAGED!!

 

 

 

happy?

[Soxbadger]

I dont feel silly, the article doesnt address half the complaints:

 

"Having said that, if we capture a high-value prisoner, I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily, to debrief that individual and to make sure that individual is properly incarcerated so we can maintain control over that individual," he said.

 

Notice how they have failed to address at all how they are going to "capture" the individual nor have they addressed what "temporarily" is.

 

You have a lot more faith in govt acting good, then I do.

 

[bmags]

it's not a f***ing dominos delivery, what are we supposed to say we'll get them to the place in half an hour or ship him home. Damn those guarantees.

[Soxbadger]

How is saying:

 

"Prisoners will not be detained longer than X days without either having charges brought against them, being brought to trial or being released."

 

If youre arrested can you be held in the police station indefinitely with out being charged?

 

My understanding is that in the US, the general time period is 24 hours after being arrested you must be charged or released, unless certain conditions are met.

 

I dont like the idea of letting the govt define "temporarily". But thats just my opinion.

[bmags]

How is saying:

 

"Prisoners will not be detained longer than X days without either having charges brought against them, being brought to trial or being released."

 

If youre arrested can you be held in the police station indefinitely with out being charged?

 

My understanding is that in the US, the general time period is 24 hours after being arrested you must be charged or released, unless certain conditions are met.

 

I dont like the idea of letting the govt define "temporarily". But thats just my opinion.

 

I think there is a little more distance and logistics involved here, no?

[Soxbadger]

Which is why I said X days, as compared to X hours.

 

If the govt isnt doing anything wrong, then it will have no problem laying out the procedures and rules that govern them.

 

Its just like the govts argument against suspected criminals:

 

"If youre not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide."