• 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!

Rendition of Terror Suspects to Continue Under Obama

RightinNYC

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

This was discussed some time ago, with many Obama defenders arguing that nothing was set in stone yet or that he was only considering this option.

Well, now he's decided.

The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to insure they are not tortured, administration officials said on Monday.

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

“The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent over overseas,” said one administration official, adding that no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive interrogations.

But human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying it would permit the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture and that promises of humane treatment, called “diplomatic assurances,” were no protection against abuse.

“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.

She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.

The Obama task force proposed improved monitoring of treatment of prisoners sent to other countries, but Ms. Singh said the usual method of such monitoring — visits from American or allied consular officials — had also been ineffective. A Canadian consular official visited Mr. Arar several times, but the prisoner was too frightened to tell him about the torture, according to a Canadian investigation of the case.
Click to expand...

Although the NYT tries to distinguish between the two policies, the difference is largely window dressing.

Under the Bush administration, the official policy was that the CIA had to evaluate the recipient country's assurances that they would not torture the prisoner before deciding to send him over.

Under the Obama administration, the official policy is that the State Dept. has to evaluate the recipient country's assurances that they would not torture the prisoner before deciding to send him over.

As noted by the ACLU, this isn't really a safeguard and is instead simply a way to provide cover for the decision.
 
I'm sure all the Libbos are fired up somethin' fierce about this.
 
Stupid under Bush.
Stupid under Obama.

:/
 
Torture is change we can believe in!
 
RightinNYC said:
How is extraordinary rendition torture under anyone?
Click to expand...

I don't think it can be justified under any leader, i think it is ridiculous and is basically a country handing over the keys to its moral ground.
 
Laila said:
I don't think it can be justified under any leader, i think it is ridiculous and is basically a country handing over the keys to its moral ground.
Click to expand...

"Extraordinary rendition" is simply the act of taking an individual from one country to another outside the judicial process. If the US captured a british terrorist in Afghanistan and dropped him off in London, that would be "extraordinary rendition." You consider that unjustifiable?

I would agree that it becomes questionable when the individuals are being rendered to countries for the express purpose of allowing them to utilize interrogation methods that we "cannot" use. However, not all transfers of individuals to countries like that are automatically problematic.
 
RightinNYC said:
"Extraordinary rendition" is simply the act of taking an individual from one country to another outside the judicial process. If the US captured a british terrorist in Afghanistan and dropped him off in London, that would be "extraordinary rendition." You consider that unjustifiable?

I would agree that it becomes questionable when the individuals are being rendered to countries for the express purpose of allowing them to utilize interrogation methods that we "cannot" use. However, not all transfers of individuals to countries like that are automatically problematic.
Click to expand...

But that is not what is happening or what i am discussing:

The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to insure they are not tortured, administration officials said on Monday.
Click to expand...

That is probably just torture under a different name.
 
Laila said:
But that is not what is happening or what i am discussing:

That is probably just torture under a different name.
Click to expand...

Is the UK not a "third country"?

If we sent you that hypothetical terrorist that I mentioned, would that be "torture under a different name"?
 
RightinNYC said:
Is the UK not a "third country"?

If we sent you that hypothetical terrorist that I mentioned, would that be "torture under a different name"?
Click to expand...

For interrogation ... in UK?

Knowing Labour and M15/6 who i do not trust, they probably torture as well so yeah. There are already reports and claims of Intelligence help in torture anyway.
 
Laila said:
For interrogation ... in UK?

Knowing Labour and M15/6 who i do not trust, they probably torture as well so yeah. There are already reports and claims of Intelligence help in torture anyway.
Click to expand...

By this logic, it is against the law for countries to extradite criminals to the UK.
 
RightinNYC said:
By this logic, it is against the law for countries to extradite criminals to the UK.
Click to expand...

Keep them.

We'd most likely release them to the public in a matter of months anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom