• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool

Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Ok. This is legal:

The U.S. transfers a Gitmo detainee to Britain.

This is illegal:

The U.S. transfers a Gitmo detainee to Syria, where there are reasonable grounds to believe he might be tortured.

That was easy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that extraordinary (non-judicial) rendition is illegal. Driving your car to the store is non-judicial and yet perfectly legal. Non-judicial just means there is no law or court order that says it must be done (as the case with extradition).

If they are moving them just to shuffle them around it should be illegal. If they are moving them to the area where they committed crimes to be tried then it should be legal. If you can move for a reason other than trial then you could just move again. And again. And again. And maybe other countries have different ties other than us that would be unfriendly for the individual.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

There was just a story on Rachel Maddow's show about this.

Oh, well that settles it.


It is believed the quote to LA Times came from a Bush holdover

Link?

that Obama has expressly rejected extraordinary rendition,

Link?

but that rendition itself dates at least to the Reagan era, and is the process that made it possible for Israel to snatch Eichmann from Argentina to stand trial in Jerusalem.

So let me get this straight. You talk about how extraordinary rendition is horrible, but it was created by Reagan and Israel used it to get an evil dude, so it's okay that Obama has tacitly approved its use now, but mostly because it was secretly a Bush dude who says Obama approved it, because Obama is actually firmly against it despite no evidence to prove that, because Rachel Maddow says so.

Okay!
 
Also, to clarify some things for people:

According to the ACLU:

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition."

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone.

Notwithstanding the ACLU's characterization of the issue, "extraordinary rendition simply means the taking of a person from one country to somewhere else by a method outside of the judicial process.

When the CIA picks someone up in Afghanistan and takes them out of the country, it doesn't matter whether they bring them to Syria or to Switzerland - both are considered "extraordinary rendition."

The practice of "extraordinary rendition" happened on rare occasions, beginning in the mid 20th century and was explicitly authorized in 1995. Immediately after this, the CIA suggested that they should begin sending the people that were captured to Egypt instead of bringing them here. This was approved by President Clinton.

Here's a great quote by Richard Clarke:

"'[E]xtraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"
 
For those of you who demanded (and still demand) that Bush be sent to the Hague to be tried for war crimes such as this - should we send Obama too?:lol:
Why won't you acknowledge the difference between rendition and rendition to countries that might torture? Come on, that is dishonest! If you would recognize that difference then you'd see that nothing in your post supports your point and this question is bogus. Rendition does not automatically mean rendition to countries that might torture. How many times does that distinction have to be pointed out?

If you can move for a reason other than trial then you could just move again. And again. And again. And maybe other countries have different ties other than us that would be unfriendly for the individual.
At some point in this hypothetical scenario, it seems we somehow lost control of this individual and he was passed around from country to country like a party favor without our knowledge or approval. I really don't think that's realistic.

Richard Clark said:
"'[E]xtraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'"
Clark starts out talking about extraordinary rendition, but then mentions Al Gore's legal take on kidnapping, not extraordinary rendition. So I don't see the significance...
 
Why won't you acknowledge the difference between rendition and rendition to countries that might torture?

I think a large part of the disconnect is confusion over labeling among journalists and posters alike.

"Rendition" simply means getting a person out of another country.
"Extraordinary rendition" means taking a person out of another country outside of the judicial process, regardless of where that person is taken.
In many cases of "extraordinary rendition," the individual is brought to a foreign country, some of which have used torture.

To be clear about what we're talking about here: The practice of "rendition" is completely uncontroversial. Everything being discussed in this thread is some form of extraordinary rendition.

Come on, that is dishonest! If you would recognize that difference then you'd see that nothing in your post supports your point and this question is bogus.

What, exactly, do you think is my point?

Here are the facts:

-The US has had an official policy allowing for extraordinary rendition for the past 13 years.

-As stated by this article:

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.

(Ed. note: They mean "extraordinary renditions.")

-According to testimony by Gen. Hayden, the Bush policy was as follows:

The agency had to make a determination in every case "that it is less, rather than more, likely that the individual will be tortured." He added that the CIA sought "true assurances" and that "we're not looking to shave this 49-51."

-In his executive order, Obama's only nod toward those who are concerned that detainees may be tortured was his creation of a "task force," directed to "reexamine renditions" to make sure that they're not being used to circumvent torture rules.

So in effect, what Obama did was create a "task force" to make sure we're still doing what the CIA says that we're already doing.

Again, absolutely nothing about our existing extraordinary rendition policy has changed.

Clark starts out talking about extraordinary rendition, but then mentions Al Gore's legal take on kidnapping, not extraordinary rendition. So I don't see the significance...

What you're referring to as "kidnapping" is extraordinary rendition.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Oh, well that settles it.




Link?



Link?



So let me get this straight. You talk about how extraordinary rendition is horrible, but it was created by Reagan and Israel used it to get an evil dude, so it's okay that Obama has tacitly approved its use now, but mostly because it was secretly a Bush dude who says Obama approved it, because Obama is actually firmly against it despite no evidence to prove that, because Rachel Maddow says so.

Okay!

N.n.nnn..nnoo....I was simply updating the thread with the information that this story was featured on cable television last night.
 
Funny how an impeachable offense that has NO DEFENSE!! Isn't really illegal because well... you know he's got a cute lil (D) next to his name and he's like y'know Jesus and stuff.. just tanner!




One of the fun things about Obama being elected is we all get to observe complete flip flops on "OMG SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!" moments/issues/policies/etc.

Well good news is Tax Evasion isn't really a crime :2wave:
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

N.n.nnn..nnoo....I was simply updating the thread with the information that this story was featured on cable television last night.

Oh, well I heard on Michael Savage today that Obama is a muslim, so there.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Oh, well I heard on Michael Savage today that Obama is a muslim, so there.

savage is wrong, Obama is the Messiah and he is going to turn on of the Great Lakes into Bud Light with a Tuaca back.
 
Funny how an impeachable offense that has NO DEFENSE!! Isn't really illegal because well... you know he's got a cute lil (D) next to his name and he's like y'know Jesus and stuff.. just tanner!




One of the fun things about Obama being elected is we all get to observe complete flip flops on "OMG SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!" moments/issues/policies/etc.

Well good news is Tax Evasion isn't really a crime :2wave:


“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

;)
 
“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

;)

Too bad I am a crimey in this aspect this year. :( But upon thinking about it there is no way I can hand Big Brother my money just so he can drop a bomb on baby on accident. Every time I pay sales tax at a store I think that I am killing someone in the slightest way. I need to go move into the forest. I can't let anyone kill through me in any way.


"Thou shall not kill" -God

I hate to think about when this catches up to me. I don't want to go to jail but I rather not kill even more.
 
Too bad I am a crimey in this aspect this year. :( But upon thinking about it there is no way I can hand Big Brother my money just so he can drop a bomb on baby on accident. Every time I pay sales tax at a store I think that I am killing someone in the slightest way. I need to go move into the forest. I can't let anyone kill through me in any way.


"Thou shall not kill" -God

I hate to think about when this catches up to me. I don't want to go to jail but I rather not kill even more.

To clarify: You're willfully failing to file a tax return because you believe that your money will just be used to kill babies?


[THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE] That seems like a really ****ing bad idea. [/THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE]
 
To clarify: You're willfully failing to file a tax return because you believe that your money will just be used to kill babies?


[THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE] That seems like a really ****ing bad idea. [/THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE]

I know... But I can't kill... I'm going to start setting an equal amount aside and writing documents on how this money is going to be locked away until we have a 100% certifiable way of paying into a non-violent assured tax. I hope I don't go to jail just because I refuse to kill indirectly. But I just cant do it... No matter how much I think about it.
 
I know... But I can't kill... I'm going to start setting an equal amount aside and writing documents on how this money is going to be locked away until we have a 100% certifiable way of paying into a non-violent assured tax. I hope I don't go to jail just because I refuse to kill indirectly. But I just cant do it... No matter how much I think about it.

You know that you're not the first person to think of this, nor will you be the first person to go to jail or pay fines/interest upon being caught, right?
 
You know that you're not the first person to think of this, nor will you be the first person to go to jail or pay fines/interest upon being caught, right?

Then let Ceaser take whats his. Because I no longer give.
 
It's not Caesar I'd be concerned with, it's Bubba and Jamal.

Hope it never comes to that, but rather deal with Bubba and Jamal than kill someone.
 
Panetta: Obama won't OK 'extraordinary rendition' - Yahoo! News
Panetta: Obama won't OK 'extraordinary rendition'
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will not conduct the kind of "extraordinary rendition" that the Bush administration allowed, CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta assured senators on Thursday.

Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee 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."

Maybe Obama isn't going to shape up as evil as I thought. Good and comforting to hear it this way.
 
Panetta: Obama won't OK 'extraordinary rendition' - Yahoo! News
Panetta: Obama won't OK 'extraordinary rendition'


Maybe Obama isn't going to shape up as evil as I thought. Good and comforting to hear it this way.

Hold up, wait a minute:

Panetta: Obama won't OK 'extraordinary rendition'
is not the same thing as
the Obama administration will not send prisoners to countries for torture or other treatment that violates U.S. values
. How ****ing stupid can journalists be? Christ, learn to use google.

Also, this part is hilarious:

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."

...

"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."

To clarify: Panetta, who held no position in the Bush Administration and thus has literally no idea what happened, says that he assumes that Bush must have done bad things because "Obama says he doesn't want them to happen again."

Hilarious. I guess that's what you get when you appoint someone with no intelligence experience to run the CIA.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Ok. This is legal:

The U.S. transfers a Gitmo detainee to Britain.

This is illegal:

The U.S. transfers a Gitmo detainee to Syria, where there are reasonable grounds to believe he might be tortured.

That would depend on the mechanism and grounds used for the transfer.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that extraordinary (non-judicial) rendition is illegal.

It's completely extra-legal, which is why it's extraordinary.


Driving your car to the store is non-judicial and yet perfectly legal.

Driving your car down the street with someone chained up against his will in the back seat isn't.


Non-judicial just means there is no law or court order that says it must be done (as the case with extradition).

But everyone has to have a legal status.
 
Back
Top Bottom