So, Obama is continuing to allow rendition?

[JDPriestly]

Two days after taking the helm of a country ready for change after eight years of George W. Bush, President Obama has allowed one controversial "War on Terror" tactic to remain in place: rendition.

Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition -- the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. -- remains in the CIA's playbook, thanks to a recent executive order issued by President Obama.

more

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_preserves_rendition_in__0201.html

And if you don't know about rendition, it was the cornerstone, the basis, the sine qua non of Bush's torture policy. In her book, The Dark Side, Jane Mayer describes the kidnapping of an apparently innocent German national, Khalid el-Mari by the CIA who renditioned el-Mari to Afghanistan where he was tortured. Eventually it was acknowledged that Khalid el-Mari was the victim of mistaken identity. We tortured him simply because he shared the name of a suspected terrorist. Mistakes happen, and that is why rendition is an abomination.

I would like to know more about Obama's policy on rendition. Under what circumstances will it be allowed under the Obama administration? Why? How will Obama avoid "mistakes" like el-Masri's rendition? Is Obama's policy of permitting rendition to continue consistent with his policy of no torture? If so, how and why?

I realize that some will claim that all this should be top secret. But we are a democracy. If rendition and possibly torture are being done in my name, as an American citizen, I have the right, and I submit, the duty to inform myself about the policy and to advocate for change in that policy if I do not agree with it.

Frankly, if Obama is so ashamed of this policy that he has to keep the details of it secret, I may decide to oppose it and speak against it. If I can know and understand all the details I might feel differently.

America is the most powerful nation in the world. We used drones -- pretty much risk-free instruments of death to silence Sunni resistance in Iraq. (If you watch John Stewart, you heard one of his guests admit to that last week.) That gives our government the ability to destroy the life of just about any human being on the planet without any American ever actually having to see blood or look or the staring eyes of the corpse. That is ultimate power. Why do we need rendition or prison camps anywhere for that matter when we have that ultimate power?

If someone has done wrong, they should be tried and found guilty or not guilty. That is the law. That is justice. To hold someone prisoner without bringing charges is kidnapping. It is a crime no matter who does it. It is unjust and nations who hold prisoners without charging them are unjust. If we are not a just nation or at least trying to be a just nation, then how much injustice should we tolerate?

How does Obama reconcile his pledge to preserve freedom and to present America as an example of freedom in the world if he plans to continue the policy of rendition?

I want to continue to support Obama. I believe he is a good man. My questions are not rhetorical. They are sincere. Obama, please explain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2216166

[Uzybone]

1. It's not something I support

but let us not pretend this started under Bush. Rendition has been going on since the 70's at least.

[geek tragedy]

2. "Of course it's a violation of international law.

That's why it's a covert operation. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

Al Gore.

[gcomeau]

3. For the hand wavers among us...

I would point out that the entire basis for this story is NOT that Obama has issued ANY executive order or statement or anything else that has said "rendition is ok". Nothing. Not one single word. They're just bitching because he hasn't issued one yet that specifically spelled out "rendition is not ok" and they're spinning that as "Obama is allowing rendition!!!!!".

What he DID do is issue an executive order ordering a review of "detention policy options" to determine lawful options for dealing with captured prisoners. Read:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ReviewofDetentionPolicyOptions/

One I have some doubt will come back with a thumbs up for renditions considering the AG is co-chairing it and Hillary is sitting on it. So how about we see what the review comes back with before we start flinging shit at him about what he is and isn't going to allow?

[BlooInBloo]

4. Because DUers want to bitch about Obama no matter what, to answer your question.

[nichomachus]

30. Do you spend a lot of time on Free Republic

It used to be the only place you could hear talk like this. Now it's par for the course on DU.

At least now we now why Barry is going to let George get away with war crimes.

[JTFrog]

35. Obviously you do.

Barry?

FFS :eyes:

[JDPriestly]

11. Thanks for clarifying this.

[jeanpalmer]

31. Rendition is evil.

Can't support it under any circumstances.

[noamnety]

15. I don't think that's accurate.

It's not just a lack of addressing it yet that people are objecting to - it's this statement in one of Obama's orders specifically preserving rendition:

"A provision in one of Obama's orders states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.""

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/stories/DN-renditions_01int.ART.State.Edition2.4c55e62.html

[gcomeau]

39. I do.

I'm more focused on this part of the Executive order:

"(e) Mission. The mission of the Special Task Force shall be:

(i) to study and evaluate whether the interrogation practices and techniques in Army Field Manual 2 22.3, when employed by departments or agencies outside the military, provide an appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the Nation, and, if warranted, to recommend any additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies; and

(ii) 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."

It is clear and explicit. There will be no more of this extraordinary rendition crap. Period. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is stirring up trouble for the sake of stirring up trouble. The "rendition" you are referring to is the simple act of turning over a prisoner to a proper criminal justice system for prosecution. There's nothing sinister about it, it is NOT the "extraordinary rendition" program Bush was running to outsource torturing prisoners.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. I figured as much. Thanks tho for the confirmation.

[wtmusic]

41. Thank you.

The LA Times - figures. What a crock.

[4lbs]

5. Rendition has been practiced by the CIA long before Dubya was selected by SCOTUS.

Both Reagan and Clinton allowed it in their admins.

[noamnety]

8. Is that relevant?

Some things are morally and legally inexcusable - even if Dubya didn't personally invent them.

[4lbs]

9. The original article seemed to imply that it was "invented" just this century with *'s admin.

n/t

[noamnety]

10. Ah, got it, sorry.

I should have read your post as a critique of the original article - I stupidly read it as implying it's not so bad if Obama does it, cause all our recent presidents have been on board with it.

I will go drink more coffee now and shut up for a bit. :)

[4lbs]

12. No problem and no offense taken. Rendition is bad, no matter who is the POTUS.

I didn't like it when Reagan allowed it, nor when Clinton did either.

And certainly not to the level that Bozo the Chimp has allowed it for the past 8 years.

[JDPriestly]

21. Actually, not all suspects have to be brought to the U.S.

I was not unquestioningly condemning rendition. I posted the OP to draw people's attention to my questions about it. Rendition might

be an acceptable policy under certain circumstances. Transferring a German national arrested in Macedonia to Italy for questioning might be OK provided that prisoner's basic human rights are protected during the questioning. Also, transferring a person that we believed on the basis of reliable evidence to be a like candidate for an attempted extortionist kidnapping by terrorists might be a likely candidate for rendition. By that, I am referring to a situation in which we have taken someone prisoner knowing that terrorists would be likely to take hostages in order to free that prisoner. Things like that happen and they justify unusual policies.

I hope that the Obama administration clearly delineates the circumstances under which rendition may or may not be used if they decide to continue to use it. Rendition is an enormously dangerous policy. It can backfire very easily. The questions in my OP are very sincere.

Criticizing Obama is not my hobby or my intention. I am horrified by what happened during the Bush administration, and, to the extent that I am able, I want to make sure that does not happen again.

[JDPriestly]

13. Read Jane Mayer's book, The Dark Side, to get the low-down

on how the Bush administration used rendition.

[jenmito]

6. Dianne Feinstein just said she believes it's not true, that the sites would only be used as

temporary holding places, NOT to have people sent to these places to be tortured.

[The Brethren]

16. It's not clear to me yet whether Obama

will allow this rendition to continue or not and for what reasons. So until I learn more about it, I will hold my judgment of him on this issue.

However, one thing I do know is that Colorado is already being considered as a state where potential terrorist prisoners (from King little George's reign of terror) may be housed in our prisons. The local news has talked about it and has even asked input from CO residents. Except from what I've read, it also not clear yet whether this will be on a permanent or temporary basis. Nor do I know whether other states are also being considered. However, one thing this tells me is something is going on. I am not sure why these plans are being considered and who will behind the planning.

Regarding rendition and the bigger picture of secret actions and black ops for ex. in our government, as far as I'm concerned none of this is a black or white issue. Like it or not, our government uses secrecy in certain areas, presumably to protect us. It has to. In order for our government to truly 100% transparent so that the American public knows exactly what it is doing and planning on doing 100% of time also means our enemies will know exactly the same thing. And this has been going on long before an imbecile like junior became our President. The difference being, as in the case of rendition, is that there must also be an inherent trust that our leaders are not exploiting and abusing the situation -- which junior and Cheney have done and who should be accountable for.

And for this reason, I'm praying Obama addresses these issues intelligently and with integrity. Likewise, I'm very glad I'm not in his shoes as our President regarding these matters.. Because no matter who well thought out and intended he may be towards this, he can easily be in a situation where he is damned if he does and damned and if he doesn't.

[JDPriestly]

24. Thanks. Secrecy should not apply to policy that could compromise

fundamental human rights. We need to know what our government's policy is on those issues. I do not need to know specific suspects' names of locations. But as a voting citizen, I need to know how suspects' rights are protected once they are in American custody. That is information I need in order to vote intelligently. I do not need to know who the suspects are or the specific locations to which they are taken, but I am, to some small degree, responsible for the policy that decides the conditions under which they are held. That is a moral issue that should part of the voter's considerations when electing a president. It's a major issue and not one that can be kept secret.

[The Brethren]

29. I agree with you.

We should know how suspects are being treated while under our government's custody. But to be honest, at this point, I'm not sure how the issue of rendition and political prisoners is going to be handled.

In other words, I don't know if I can trust that Obama, his admin. and/or the media will be completely honest with the public about it. I would very much like to think that Obama will be upfront about it and that he will not treat politically, suspect detainees as junior/cheney have done.

When it comes to certain areas of our government, I am no longer as trusting as I use to be.

[K Gardner]

7. I detest posts whose title starts with .. "SO.. Obama..." n/t

[JDPriestly]

14. I detest Obama worshippers. I like Obama. I want to trust him.

I worked to get him elected. But I do not worship any human being and certainly not any president. He is a human being. He is our employee. We as a people are responsible for making sure he does the right thing.

If I learned one thing under the Bush administration, it is that you cannot take the honesty and integrity of any person with as much power as the president of the United States has for granted. The temptations are too many and too great when that much power is vested in one person.

Power corrupts. Obama is a great guy, but power corrupts.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I detest people who don't do their homework before posting a

J'accuse thread, even if they attempted to get around an outright accusation by inserting a question mark at the end of their accusation.

[JDPriestly]

19. I read the Raw Story article. It is pretty alarming. I recently

finished Jane Mayer's book. Have you read it? If you read it, you may understand why this issue is so important to me.

[FrenchieCat]

22. In otherwords, you were "concerned", right?

Quoting the article, this line got my BS meter going....

"Two days after taking the helm of a country....."

Now, mind you, those are the beginning 9 words of the first paragraph of the entire article. :eyes:

[JDPriestly]

28. Yes. I am concerned about rendition. I just finished reading Jane Mayers' book.

Had you read it too, you would be as concerned about rendition as I am.

[JFKfanforever]

38. How can this be happening? Say it ain't so.....

This morning's rendition story from the Chicago Trib   

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-renditions_31jan31,0,2998929.story

[Boomerang Diddle]

37. Don't believe everything you read.

Just because something in posted on the internet or printed in a book doesn't it mean it is factually correct or contains all the details needed to make an informed decision.

[Danger Mouse]

20. The old Fox News strategy. 'Does Obama hate kittens?'

What? It's just a QUESTION!

[DevonRex]

23. I detest people who keep spewing that "Obama worshipper" bullshit.

Do your homework before you post and do NOT call people who challenge you "Obama worshippers."

[Danger Mouse]

27. But I'm an Obama worshipper.

Obbbaaammma....obbbaammmaaa....

[Boomerang Diddle]

36. Amen!!!

I don't understand these people who claim to be Democrats while spewing rightwing talking points!?! Why would any Democrat parrot the likes of Hannity, Limbuagh and Coulter?

[Danger Mouse]

18. Let's see if he actually continues it or not.

..since this is all just speculation at this point.

[WinkyDink]

25. We would know only if he declared an end.

[Danger Mouse]

26. So far he hasn't indicated either way what he's going to do.

:shrug:

[Life Long Dem]

32. Are we there yet??

:bounce:

[mmonk]

34. Rendition is ok. I'm sure Americans wouldn't mind if the leader of

some other country kidnapped Americans and sent them off to be totured because they deemed them a threat while skipping trials and such. Americans would surely be for it for others as they are for it for the US.

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

40. He doesn't have to reconcile something that isn't true. Here is the update at

the Raw Story link:

Update at bottom: Did LA Times get 'punked'? Liberals push back against LA Times story


The LA Times' story is bogus.