Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: Barack Obama to allow Rendition to continue

  1. #1
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,701

    Default Barack Obama to allow Rendition to continue

    Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue

    The highly controversial anti-terror practice of rendition will continue under Barack Obama, it has emerged.


    Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo and an end to harsh interrogation techniques, the new president has failed to call an end to secret abductions and questioning.

    In his first few days in office, Mr Obama was lauded for rejecting policies of the George W Bush era, but it has emerged the CIA still has the authority to carry out renditions in which suspects are picked up and often sent to a third country for questioning.

    The practice caused outrage at the EU, after it was revealed the CIA had used secret prisons in Romania and Poland and airports such as Prestwick in Scotland to conduct up to 1,200 rendition flights. The European Parliament called renditions "an illegal instrument used by the United States".

    According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed, with the new administration deciding it needs to retain some devices in Mr Bush's anti-terror arsenal amid continued threats to US national security.

    "Obviously you need to preserve some tools – you still have to go after the bad guys," an administration official told the Los Angeles Times.

    "The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."

    Section 2 (g) of the order, appears to allow the US authorities to continue detaining and interrogating terror suspects as long as it does not hold them for long periods. It reads: "The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."

    The revelation will cause anger in Europe, where several cases of abuse or mistaken identity were revealed during the Bush administration.

    Khaled Masri, a German citizen, was arrested in Macedonia in 2003 and taken to Afghanistan for five months before the CIA realised it had made a mistake. The Italians sought to prosecute CIA operatives who had arrested Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric, and flew him to Egypt where he claimed he was tortured.

    Though rendition was widely deployed after the September 11 attacks, the programme began under Bill Clinton, the last Democratic president, in the early 1990s. It is credited with bringing to justice Ramzi Yousef, who was picked up in Pakistan, brought to the US and convicted for plotting the 1993 bombings at the World Trade Centre in New York.

    Rendition could well become the second issue to strain relations between the new president and his European allies, in addition to an argument over "Buy American" clauses in Mr Obama's $820 billion plan to revive the economy.

    European embassies have already urged senators who will debate the bill this week to remove stipulations that any infrastructure projects funded in the package use only American steel, iron and concrete. Leaders of major corporations and business groups have come out strongly against the provisions.

    In the senate protectionism is not the most pressing issue however. Mr Obama faces a real battle to have his bill approved because Republicans see it as spending bill designed to please Democratic constituencies rather than create jobs.

    Jon Kyl, the Republican's second-ranking Senate member, said yesterday that the party would flex its muscles by stalling the package, by talking the bill off the agenda with a filibuster.

    The president meanwhile kept up his attempt to charm the opposition into accepting his plan, which could determine the fate of not just the economy but his presidency. He invited 15 congressmen from both major parties to watch last night's Superbowl game, the climax of the American football season, at the White House.

    Barack Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue - Telegraph
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  2. #2
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    I'm sure Maher Arar is thrilled about this.

    Obama, you better not let this shit continue or closing Guantanamo is just fucking window dressing, which many people assumed anyway.

    DONT BE A DICK.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #3
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Yeah, like Obama, or any other president, is going to get the CIA to completely close their secret prisons. Good luck with that. Obama is better off trying to work with the CIA in refining the prisons, because that's the best he's getting out of them.

    Closing Gitmo is the bigger deal, because that, along with Abu-Ghrab, were the two biggest recruiting tools for Al-Queda.

  4. #4
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Closing GITMO but having illegal and immoral secret abductions is utterly contradictory. How the hell do you fairly and openly try people in a constitutional manner who have been forcibly abducted and shipped to other countries for "interrogation' ?

    you CAN'T.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #5
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Having illegal prisons where you ignore the law is a bad thing. But the CIA is NOT going to close those prisons, no matter what Obama or anyone else says.

    So, knowing that, the best thing Obama can do is to try and work with some of the other countries and make sure that the CIA isn't ignoring the law anymore.

  6. #6
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,026

    Default

    Having illegal prisons and having renditions are two different issues. In other words, you may not be able to shut down the prisons right away, but you can stop abducting people and sending them there.

  7. #7
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Only if the CIA chooses to stop doing it. The president can say don't do it, does that mean that the CIA will automatically stop doing it? Doubtful.

    I agree that the CIA shouldn't just be snatching people up and taking them to other countries. But they aren't going to completely stop doing it. So, the best thing to do is try to make sure that you actually have a legitimate terror suspect and then make sure you follow the letter of the law, whatever that may be under those circumstances.

  8. #8
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Only if the CIA chooses to stop doing it. The president can say don't do it, does that mean that the CIA will automatically stop doing it? Doubtful.

    I agree that the CIA shouldn't just be snatching people up and taking them to other countries. But they aren't going to completely stop doing it. So, the best thing to do is try to make sure that you actually have a legitimate terror suspect and then make sure you follow the letter of the law, whatever that may be under those circumstances.
    Why do you think the CIA is not answerable to the President? Jimmy Carter issued executive orders banning CIA activities that were allowed during the Nixon administration, and it worked back then.

  9. #9
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,701

    Default

    This is not a case of the CIA acting on it's own.

    The president has not said don't do it to the CIA. He has granted them the continued authority to do renditions:

    'According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed'

    There is no letter of the law to be followed in the case of renditions once the prisoners have been rendered. It's the rendition itself that the world community considers illegal.

    But that would be a good line of defense for Dubya, in case the Hague ever brings him to trial. "It was Clinton's executive orders that started rendition, and the CIA that carried it out despite my being president....my hands are clean". I doubt anyone would buy it though.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  10. #10
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    Why do you think the CIA is not answerable to the President? Jimmy Carter issued executive orders banning CIA activities that were allowed during the Nixon administration, and it worked back then.
    And you know with 100% certainty that the CIA, at all levels, followed Carter's orders?

    The CIA will listen to any president on the surface. But there will always be branches of the government that feel like they aren't answerable to anyone and operate their own shadow governments.

    Under Bush, the CIA and FBI knew they could openly break the law because they had the backing of the White House, the State Department and the Justice Department. Even if that isn't the case with Obama, that doesn't automatically mean that they aren't going to do what they want, on the sly, if they feel it's for national security.

  11. #11
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Back of Beyond
    Posts
    11,082

    Default

    Kennedy got his head shot off for vowing to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" so I see what you are saying King. However, to not even PRETEND to have agencies of the gov't under his control can't be good for his image abroad.

  12. #12
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    And you know with 100% certainty that the CIA, at all levels, followed Carter's orders?

    The CIA will listen to any president on the surface. But there will always be branches of the government that feel like they aren't answerable to anyone and operate their own shadow governments.

    Under Bush, the CIA and FBI knew they could openly break the law because they had the backing of the White House, the State Department and the Justice Department. Even if that isn't the case with Obama, that doesn't automatically mean that they aren't going to do what they want, on the sly, if they feel it's for national security.
    If Obama provided an executive order that could prevent 90% renditions (with 10% still being done by some supposed shadowy CIA branch), why couldn't he at least do that?

  13. #13
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    By: Hilzoy

    The LA Times On Rendition
    The LA Times has an article today called "Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool":
    "The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.
    But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.
    Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.
    Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street. (...)
    "Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."(...)
    The decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human rights groups. Leaders of such organizations attribute that to a sense that nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.
    "Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."
    Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. "Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance," Malinowski said."
    If the LA Times is right to claim that the Obama administration has left open the possibility of extraordinary renditions, that would be a huge problem. However, I don't think it is. Here it helps to have spent some time reading the actual orders. The order called "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations" contains the following passage:
    "Sec. 6. Construction with Other Laws. Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the obligations of officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government to comply with all pertinent laws and treaties of the United States governing detention and interrogation, including but not limited to: the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A; the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441; the Federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. 113; the Federal maiming statute, 18 U.S.C. 114; the Federal "stalking" statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A; articles 93, 124, 128, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 893, 924, 928, and 934; section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd; section 6(c) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109 366; the Geneva Conventions; and the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to diminish any rights that any individual may have under these or other laws and treaties."
    Part 1, Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture states:
    "1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
    2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."
    Obama orders people to comply with the Convention Against Torture, and that Convention states that we cannot return people to states where there are substantial grounds to believe that they will be tortured. And nothing the Obama administration has done to date suggests to me that they would engage in the kinds of creative reading of legal documents that would allow them, say, to disregard Egypt's long record of torture in making this determination.

    Moreover, Obama's Executive Order also establishes a commission one of whose goals is:
    "to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."
    So in addition to announcing that the administration will obey the Convention Against Torture, the administration will also study not whether to send detainees off to be tortured, but how to ensure that our policies are not intended to result in their torture, and will not result in their torture. This seems to me like a very clear renunciation of the policy of sending people to third countries to be tortured. His executive order also precludes any kind of secret detention of prisoners, and thus "secret abductions and transfers of prisoners":
    "All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies."
    Note that this has no exceptions for short-term detainees whom we quickly hand off to someone else.

    So what accounts for the LA Times' story? The Times cites "Current and former U.S. intelligence officials" in support of its thesis. I don't take the statements of former administration officials as evidence of anything in this regard, since they would not be privy to the Obama administration's thinking. Moreover, there have been a whole lot of "former administration officials" wandering around saying that once Obama got into office and saw how tough things really were, he would be forced to adopt their policies, only to discover that -- surprise, surprise! -- he doesn't. I don't see much reason to take their opinions as probative this time.

    Obama officials, of course, are a different story: they would know, and they have no vested interest in believing that the previous administration's policies are somehow inevitable. The Times quotes only one official, who says: "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. (...) if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice." It's important, here, to note that extraordinary rendition is not the same as rendition proper. Rendition is just moving people from one jurisdiction (in the cases at hand, one country) to another; includes all sorts of perfectly normal things, like extradition, which are not problematic legally. Extraordinary rendition is rendition outside these established legal processes: e.g., kidnapping someone abroad so that s/he can be brought to the US to stand trial, or delivering someone to another country to be tortured.

    The author of the Times article, however, defines "rendition" as "secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States." It's not clear whether he knows that rendition includes perfectly normal things like extradition. It's also not clear that he knows that extraordinary rendition includes not just cases in which we transfer a detainee to another country, but cases in which we capture someone abroad and take them to this country to be tried.

    What is clear, however, is that Obama's executive order prohibits sending people off to other countries where there are substantial grounds to think that they will be tortured, and commits his administration not just to hoping that this will not happen, but to trying to figure out how to keep it from happening. I will continue to watch what the Obama administration does. If they backtrack on their commitment not to engage in extraordinary rendition, I will call them on it. But I don't think that this article provides evidence that they will.

    The Washington Monthly

  14. #14
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,701

    Default

    it helps to have spent some time reading the actual orders

    yes it does...however, the Hillzoy article above does not dispute the Telegraph's point on section Section 2 (g) of the order. In the link provided by Hillzoy - section 2 (g) does say exactly what the OP notes.

    Anyway, here's how this whole thing will play out:

    - Rendition continues. As long as nothing major breaks, we won’t hear a thing.

    - If something major breaks (e.g. torture of a transferred prisoner), we’ll hear a response that the US was given all assurances that wouldn’t happen so it’s not our fault.

    - Everyone goes on their merry way.

    Maybe that old lady will ask the press secretary a question in the daily briefing… that’s about it.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  15. #15
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    No, the Telegraph's article is slapdash. It doesn't provide any context for previous renditions like Noriega and those who bombed the US Embassies in Africa, which is what 2(g) is clearly about. The Telegraph is insinuating that previous rendition policy such as that which led to the embassy bombers sitting in jail is equivalent to extraordinary rendition, which was solely instigated by Bush for torture.
    Renditions Buffoonery

    By Scott Horton
    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.

    Renditions Buffoonery—By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: October 15th, 2008, 11:37 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 10:15 PM
  3. Barack Obama goes after Republican votes with 'Republicans for Obama'
    By kingcap72 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 12th, 2008, 01:20 PM
  4. Malik Obama confirms his half-brother Barack Obama grew up a Muslim
    By Incognito in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: June 17th, 2008, 04:32 PM
  5. Barack Obama wins Wisconsin; Wis. exit poll: Obama with broad backing
    By january in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: February 20th, 2008, 09:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •