Rendition to Continue, but With Better Oversight, U.S. Says

[Demeter]

Source: NYTimes

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday...

The announcement, by President Obama’s Interrogation and Transfer Policy Task Force, seemed intended in part to offset the impact of the release on Monday of a long-withheld report by the C.I.A. inspector general, written in 2004, that offered new details about the brutal tactics used by the C.I.A. in interrogating terrorism detainees.

Though the Obama administration previously signaled that it would continue the use of renditions, some civil liberties groups were disappointed because, as a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama had strongly suggested he might end the practice. In an article in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 2007, Mr. Obama wrote, “To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people.”

....The administration officials, who discussed the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would operate more openly and give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?_r=1

---

Well, that makes it all better, then. And congrats to the NYT for a headline which would make the Onion proud.

[iamtechus]

1. Why sneak them to a third country if it's all legal? [nt]

[PSPS]

6. Exactly

The only purpose for "rendition" in the first place was to let the masters of torture do the torturing while not sullying our hands with either the blood or, apparently, the culpability. So if, as U-bama claims, we'll start "closely supervising" to insure against torture, what's the purpose of having any rendition program at all? Sadly, we all know the reason. And it's just another of U-bama's many self-inflicted wounds that guarantees he's a one-termer.

[Mithreal]

8. Agreed, cat's out of the bag. America tortures. nt

[saigon68]

25. "Change we can believe in" , shouted The Present Occupant

Lovely-- Nice "Rule of Law"

[Metta]

2. Right. Let's torture the right way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6383218

[defendandprotect]

3. Whaaaaat -- ?????????????

[tocqueville]

4. if tortures hurts too much, just raise your hand nt

[Teaser]

5. good move.

rendition has always been US policy. Make sure that it's supervised.

[frog92969]

14. But if there's an arrest ("rendition"),

shouldn't it be preceded by charges and followed by a trial?

It's always been a US policy that's always been wrong.

[No Elephants]

19. Rendition and extraordinary rendition are not the same. Extraordinary rendition began under Clinton

and was expanded under Dummya. http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

[frog92969]

26. They should either be defendants or P.O.W.s

Anything else is kidnapping and a violation of human rights.

And you'll never catch me defending The Clintons.

[No Elephants]

16. ? I thought extraordinary rendition began under Clinton?

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

[2Design]

7. this is wrong and disappointment - just one of many n/t

[mbperrin]

9. New improved rendition! Along with cleaner brighter tor, I mean, aggressive

interrogation.

Remind me again why we're better than Lenin or Stalin?

[Old Time Pagan]

10. Not going to take much more

before I never vote for anyone with a D or a R after their name. I worked for Obama, I got my wife to contribute to his campaign (she had NOT contributed to any political campaigns in over 28 years.) We believed in this man's story, his obvious love of his family, his newness, his style, his message, etc. While I don't regret for one moment his winning (consider the alternative), I am rapidly reaching a point of total disillusionment with our current system. That being said, unless Obama is playing one very amazing game of political chess I will no longer consider voting for an independent or third party candidate a wasted vote. I'll consider a vote for either a dem or a repuke as simply a guarantee of more of the same.

And that dear friends is the one thing we simply can not afford.

[Iowa]

13. Good post Old Time Pagan. I agree completely. n/t

[No Elephants]

17. .....

I pledge allegiance

To the flag

Of the United States of America

And to the Republicrats

For which it stands

One Party, under God,

Forever and ever, amen.


c 2009 no elephants






Welcome Old Pagan. :hi:

[caseymoz]

28. I didn't think moving this country left would take just one election.

That being said, a lot more has to be done when it comes to selecting and grooming the candidates; that is, being groomed at the state and local level and then moving up to the federal level. It would be better if the people most acquainted with the person would have more say in whether that person will run, rather than the person him or herself.

I still think Obama was probably the better choice over Clinton, who were both the better choices over any Republican candidate, most of whom were still mostly better than any third party candidates, Green, Libertarian, Natural Law, or whatever. For myself, I don't know how that dynamic will change by strengthening third parties. It will skew the advantage in the election toward your political enemies, that is almost guaranteed.

My thought is that we only have two viable parties because our system isn't really designed to accommodate political parties. In fact, the Founders took the formation of parties within a decade after ratification as a sign that their system had failed. (Yes, so contentious and better were the factions that many thought that they failed.) The Constitution and system of rights was made to discourage parties. In contrast, in a Parliamentary system parties are more or less constitutionally acknowledged and encouraged. After elections, the seats in the legislature are allotted on the basis of how many votes the party received. Then, if no one party has a majority, coalitions are built through deals cut between the parties post-election. The executive branch is then formed according to those agreements, and the government lasts only as long as the coalition does.

Unlike ours, a parliamentary system is designed to accommodate parties. Ours was designed to function so that there wouldn't be any need for formal parties or permanent ideological factions. It fell short. Since parties are actually discouraged in the way the Constitution is written, that is the likely the biggest reason why you don't see any successful third parties. The Constitution is written so that, in theory, one could be elected to Congress and the legislature, in theory anyway, without any party affiliation whatsoever.

There's another thing I could think of: just because there are only two major, national parties doesn't mean that there aren't "informal" parties within them. I mean, we have the Blue Dog Democrats, we have the "liberal" wing, that is, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich and such. There are unions, there are the environmentalists.

Nevertheless, it's a far more rigid system. These alliances tend to last decades rather than shift between elections, and there is such a divide now between Democrat and Republican that factional mobility between the two is extremely limited. Only "centrist" can flow back and forth. If labor doesn't have a political voice in the Democratic Party, it doesn't have a voice. Every once in a while, there is a major mass defection, such as the South bolting to the Republican Party in the '70s and '80s or African Americans switching permanently to the Democrats in the '30s. (Thank you, Herbert Hoover!) But in these days, that won't be helped by the addition of a third party, because many times the factions that end up either Democrat or Republican have mutually excluding interests. They still won't fit together well in a third party. It's likely to be a one or two issue party.

Therefore, I really can't find that there is a good solution to our system in a third party. We can't pretend we have a parliamentary system and expect to be successful. In this nation, as Ralph Nader showed, a third party is far less likely to put your candidate in office than it is to give the election to your political enemies.

A better idea is needed on how factions within the parties can gain more power. I would suggest that we work to make the selection of the candidates for office be much more open. This means that much more attention must be paid to what is going on within the parties between elections.

[Wilms]

11. Glad to hear we're goin' all kinder and gentler and junk like that. n/t

x(

[hmorehead]

12. You say rendition,

I say kidnap. If due process is good enough for me, its good enough for alledged Al Quieda. Would the US stand for any sort of rendition of an American citezen? Has any American EVER been taken from this country to any other country to face justice. NO. NOT EVER. NOT EVEN ONCE.

[aquart]

15. What OP said about the Times and the Onion.

Are they kidding me?

[EFerrari]

18. Panetta said at his confirmation hearing that there would be rendition. n/t

[No Elephants]

21. And a Democratic Congress nonetheless confirmed him Don't

it make my brown eyes blue?

[EFerrari]

23. It's disappointing that after all the horrible abuses we've seen

in the last eight years, there isn't more of a will to oppose this kind of governmental criminality.

[Judi Lynn]

20. From the same party which has been THE champion of human rights in this country. n/t

[No Elephants]

22. Well, until we began fearing an attack on our own soil. Please see Post 19.

[flyarm]

24. More of that "change we can believe in" eh???????? WHAT A DISGRACE!

AND WHAT A JOKE ON THE GULLIBLE!

[Solly Mack]

27. K&R

[Hell Hath No Fury]

29. Well that is just shitty as hell. :(

I knew O wasn't going to be my dream President, but shit like this is beyond disappointing. :mad:

Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.....

[tpsbmam]

30. White House Won't Rule Out Sending Terror Suspects To Countries That Torture

Source: HuffPo

The Obama administration will not rule out sending terror suspect to countries known for sanctioning torture. But the White House promised to institute robust monitoring mechanisms to ensure that no torture was taking place.

In a conference call with reporters on Monday, senior administration officials who spoke under condition of anonymity insisted that the White House's new interrogation and detention system would ensure that suspects were not mistreated when sent overseas. But the basic policy is similar to the highly controversial approach taken by the Bush administration. It's a different White House with a comparable message: Trust us.

"The U.S. government should not and will not transfer any individual where there is a likelihood that they will be tortured," said one senior White House aide. "It is something the U.S. government takes very seriously and no individual will be transferred to a country where there is a greater likelihood than not that the individual will be tortured."

****

On the issue of transferring terrorist suspects overseas, the Obama White House is attempting to fix, rather than abandon, the Bush's approach. According to the senior administration officials, the State Department will be tasked with evaluating assurances given by foreign countries that terrorist suspects sent to their jurisdiction would not be tortured. Additionally, inspector generals at the Department of State, Defense, and Homeland Security will be conducting annual reports looking at the status of those assurances. U.S. officials will also be allowed private access to the transferred subject "with minimal advance notice to the detaining government."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/24/white-house-wont-rule-out_n_267201.html

[GodlessBiker]

31. I suppose that includes us.

[bluestateguy]

32. Scott Roeder is going to be renditioned?

Fine by me.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. I don't mind them not ruling it out publicly.

As long as they don't actually do it.

If terrorists think it might be a possibility, fine. Let them think that. But, Mr. President, don't let us catch you doing it. And we will be on the lookout.

[caseymoz]

38. Sorry, I can't settle for the idea that he's all for future Presidents doing this

but that he will restrain himself. We must have a lot more than just the scruples of the particular man in the Presidency to rely on now. I've heard it said too often that George Bush was at least a good man.

We have to reign in the all-powerful office of the president. If Obama isn't willing to do it, Congress and the courts must step in.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. No arguments about reigning in the office of the presidency here. n/t

[merh]

50. The article states that if suspects are sent to countries that torture

they will (the US officials will) obtain assurances that the suspects will not be tortured.

The article's title is misleading.

As I read the article, the WH interrogation policy will be that "renditions" will continue but that the host nation/country/government must guarantee that they WILL NOT torture.

[paulsby]

57. "I'll pull out. i guarantee it"

it's about as believable.

[ohio2007]

34. Just send the Gitmo gangs home to their country of origin. I don't buy into that: "but they will be

tortured in their home countries" crap.

[CoffeeCat]

35. America does not torture!

But we know some real badasses who do. Enjoy!

[ohio2007]

36. middle eastern countries do not torture either.

It's all Hollywood hype.

[Xenotime]

39. Agreed. We bring torture to the people. It's good to send them home.

[caseymoz]

37. Come on, Obama.

This is more than outrageous. I am now ordering my Howard Dean in 2012 t-shirts. Obama, I hope you show more comprehension of the values this country was upon in the meantime so I could come back. As of now, I think you're a lost cause.

I voted for a pragmatist, but I didn't vote for a centrist, especially about torture and Constitutional Rights. I hope he re-creates himself to the left-- before it's too late.

[katkat]

47. not a centrist

Allowing torture isn't centrist. It's rightwing crazy.

[caseymoz]

55. It's centrist in the funny farm that this nation has turned into.

I wish it weren't, but it's true, and it's the main reason why I voted for a liberal.

[DebbieCDC]

41. "Robust monitoring"

Please don't make me laugh

[shadowknows69]

42. Fuck this shit with a rusty chainsaw. Any Canadians looking to adopt a forty year old?

[Solly Mack]

43. K&R

[FarCenter]

44. It they are a citizen of country X, then extradite them to country X

It is up to country X after that.

But don't send to country Y that tortures.

[corpseratemedia]

45. well it seems that publicity like this is a boondoggle for the US

what perceptive leaders we have!..because * was in power, that means...he was right, and his policies were right..because..he was in power, so that means his policies were..powerful, which meant that..they worked!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

just "trust" us, nudge nudge wink wink

[Iowa]

46. Trust Obama? Yeah, right!

[Bragi]

48. Sigh /nt

[MannyGoldstein]

49. Shocking, But Not Surprising

Let's try to elect a Democrat in 2012.

[joeycola]

51. Agree

[The Stranger]

52. White House Won't Rule Out Sending Terror Suspects FROM A Country That Tortures

[IndianaGreen]

53. Change You Can Believe In!

:puke:

[bvar22]

54. What a strange collection of double speak.

We WILL rendition "suspects" to a country that openly TORTURES, but we will TRUST them not to fib to us.

The only thing that "changed" is the language,...NOT The Policy.

[24601]

56. How do you all feel about this? Concerning this one line in the NYT

story, "... but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured...."

Isn't this absolutely, totally unacceptable. To think that in this day and age, that this still is going on should be the subject of Congressional hearings and perhaps a DOJ investigation. You would think that after all this time, with all the past experiences, the so called "professionals" in this business would know better. Why, oh why do they have to split the infinitive when it is to easy to write "...pledges to monitor their treatment closely...." instead of "to closely monitor"? Is it any wonder that the cost of a share of NYT stock is less than one Sunday paper?

I also have reservations about the rendition program.

[saigon68]

58. -