• 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!

Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns - The Washington Post

The men are the latest example of how the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Renditions are taking on renewed significance because the administration and Congress have not reached agreement on a consistent legal pathway for apprehending terrorism suspects overseas and bringing them to justice.
Click to expand...

The Administration has resisted putting any more terrorists in Gitmo, so the alternatives become killing them outright, as in drone attacks, or rendition. Congress has resisted the administration's plan to detain these people in civilian jails and prisons and try them in civilian courts. There is no Senator who welcomes such prisoners in his or her state's courts and prisons.

The other aspect of this particular case is the fact that the three men in question have never had anything to do with the US and were not planning to come to the US or attack the US. They are being prosecuted under a doctrine of universal jurisdiction -- the idea that the US can prosecute criminals that commit crimes anywhere in the world even if they have nothing to do with the US.

Article One of the Constitution allows for prosecution of criminals anywhere in the world who commit crimes recognized as "offenses against the law of nations." What these men are alleged to have done does not fall into that rubric. They were merely participating in a foreign civil war.
 
So... you conservative lot are now against renditions but under Bush you were for them?

And for the record... I passionately believe it is a crime what the US is doing and have been doing. Obama and his administration should be ashamed .. but then again they are just using the tools that the Bush administration put in place.
 
Well, I'm still against them.
 
Obama is W 2.0. Always has been.
 
PeteEU said:
So... you conservative lot are now against renditions but under Bush you were for them?

And for the record... I passionately believe it is a crime what the US is doing and have been doing. Obama and his administration should be ashamed .. but then again they are just using the tools that the Bush administration put in place.
Click to expand...

You = Hypocrite

Even though Obama is doing it, in your infantile irrational mind you still blame Bush

PATHETIC
 
PeteEU said:
So... you conservative lot are now against renditions but under Bush you were for them?
Click to expand...

Merely pointing out the hypocrisy that occurs whenever liberal ideals meet real world conditions...
 
Diogenes said:
Merely pointing out the hypocrisy that occurs whenever liberal ideals meet real world conditions...
Click to expand...

Hardly. But it is wrong no matter who is doing it.
 
PeteEU said:
So... you conservative lot are now against renditions but under Bush you were for them?

And for the record... I passionately believe it is a crime what the US is doing and have been doing. Obama and his administration should be ashamed .. but then again they are just using the tools that the Bush administration put in place.
Click to expand...

BS alert. Obama is now doing what is practical, a key difference between campaigning (pretending?) and governing (action?). What you intentionally fail to see is reality, but as president, Obama must actually face reality. The politician Obama panders to all things popular with his voting base, but the governing version of Obama must git-r-done and allows those actually placed in charge to employ the methods that get positive results. Attempting to use "blame Bush" is a major fail on this issue, but I suppose that is how Obamatrons justify all actions under his command that violate his campaign "promises".
 
What I want to know is when we decided that terrorists were supervillains that can't be trusted to our normal justice system. When they talked about 9/11 trials for Al-Qaeda members being held in New York, people freaked out. We can't have the trial in Manhattan! Why the **** not? These guys are backwater murdering assholes with rifles and crappy homemade bombs, not Lex Luthor. A robot army is not going to crash through the wall in the middle of a trial and free them. There's Ocean's Eleven plan to bust them out of prison.

So why can't we put them on trial and toss them in prison alongside every other murderer? They don't deserve special treatment. Treating them specially just gives the impression that they are special.
 
Bill Clinton practiced rendition, so did Dubya, and so does Barack. Just goes to show that they all have the same values--no respect for the law, and no respect for human dignity, donkeys or elephants.
 
Fisher said:
Obama is W 2.0. Always has been.
Click to expand...

I've said the exact same thing. The people who love Obama....don't understand why they hate Bush. And vice-vesa. Peas in a pod...the fascist pod of American authoritarianism; but the same pod none the less.
 
PeteEU said:
So... you conservative lot are now against renditions but under Bush you were for them?

And for the record... I passionately believe it is a crime what the US is doing and have been doing. Obama and his administration should be ashamed .. but then again they are just using the tools that the Bush administration put in place.
Click to expand...

Kudos to you for being consistent where so many are not.

I thought that Bush had the authority to do this and that Obama is acting within the law also. I mention it more to point out the fact that, on the legal question, Obama agrees that you guys were wrong the whole time. ;)

Of course, Obama is still not using the interrogation methods that liberals objected to with Bush. Either that or he is keeping it secret. Regardless, he will use them if the need arises, mark my words. Besides, which is worse, harsh interrogation or blasting people, including any innocent people standing around, into tiny bits with a drone missile? If the President can do the latter with a clear conscience then I hardly see how he'd have a problem with the former.
 
Deuce said:
What I want to know is when we decided that terrorists were supervillains that can't be trusted to our normal justice system.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the difference between a criminal act and an act of war?
 
Deuce said:
What I want to know is when we decided that terrorists were supervillains that can't be trusted to our normal justice system. When they talked about 9/11 trials for Al-Qaeda members being held in New York, people freaked out. We can't have the trial in Manhattan! Why the **** not? These guys are backwater murdering assholes with rifles and crappy homemade bombs, not Lex Luthor. A robot army is not going to crash through the wall in the middle of a trial and free them. There's Ocean's Eleven plan to bust them out of prison.

So why can't we put them on trial and toss them in prison alongside every other murderer? They don't deserve special treatment. Treating them specially just gives the impression that they are special.
Click to expand...

The why is simple. Civilian rules of evidence, constitutional safeguards, like habeus corpus, and presumption of innocence don't apply under the rules of a military tribunal.

As a practical matter it means easier convictions without having to disclose evidence that the government doesn't want disclose or perhaps doesn't even possess.
 
Gaius46 said:
The why is simple. Civilian rules of evidence, constitutional safeguards, like habeus corpus, and presumption of innocence don't apply under the rules of a military tribunal.

As a practical matter it means easier convictions without having to disclose evidence that the government doesn't want disclose or perhaps doesn't even possess.
Click to expand...

It can be done, or they can be treated like actual prisoners of war, following such rules of conduct. Too often we have abused people who were neither soldiers nor criminals, neither terrorist nor enemy combatants. The point of rule of law is largely to limit the number of such mistakes.
 
Gaius46 said:
The why is simple. Civilian rules of evidence, constitutional safeguards, like habeus corpus, and presumption of innocence don't apply under the rules of a military tribunal.

As a practical matter it means easier convictions without having to disclose evidence that the government doesn't want disclose or perhaps doesn't even possess.
Click to expand...

They probably would not be able to get convinctions in a civil trial because so much of the evidence is foreign intelligence, which can't be disclosed without also disclosing means and methods, and because it's not admissible under rules of evidence.

And they don't want those guys in civilian prisons where they can mix with the population there and preach jihad. Also, those guys usually try to turn their trials into propaganda for Al Qaeda and themselves into martyrs.

As foreign combatants they don't have a right to a trial in any particular form. The President has the authority to treat them in whatever way seems in the best interest of the US. Obama wants to try them in civilian courts because he thinks that's the way it should be done. I suppose this has more with the US being precieved as fair. But the fact that he can just execute them summarily by drone attack shows how wrong that people who think a civilian trial is a legal requirement are.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
So... you conservative lot are now against renditions but under Bush you were for them?

And for the record... I passionately believe it is a crime what the US is doing and have been doing. Obama and his administration should be ashamed .. but then again they are just using the tools that the Bush administration put in place.
Click to expand...

I agree that general conservative interest is likely political here, but the fact that democrats, liberals, and progressives now support such programs, in the majority, is likely political, as well. Sad that both sides view the issue as nothing more than political fodder
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I agree that general conservative interest is likely political here, but the fact that democrats, liberals, and progressives now support such programs, in the majority, is likely political, as well. Sad that both sides view the issue as nothing more than political fodder
Click to expand...

I'm not, convinced that progressives, let alone liberals support it. There is just not so much wrong coming at them. Rendition was not the only issue Bush presented us with. And time often tempers dissent.
 
Diogenes said:
Do you understand the difference between a criminal act and an act of war?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that these people are not being treated as prisoners of war?

Dr. Chuckles said:
I agree that general conservative interest is likely political here, but the fact that democrats, liberals, and progressives now support such programs, in the majority, is likely political, as well. Sad that both sides view the issue as nothing more than political fodder
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen a liberal say they actually support this?
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm not, convinced that progressives, let alone liberals support it. There is just not so much wrong coming at them. Rendition was not the only issue Bush presented us with.
Click to expand...

"Even the party base appears willing to forgive that failure.

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of President George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed."

Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies - The Washington Post


"The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.

And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35. Those numbers were provided to me by the Post polling team."

Liberals, Dems approve of drone strikes on American citizens abroad - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

given those numbers, I would be really amazed that circumstances were different only when concerned with rendition
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
"Even the party base appears willing to forgive that failure.

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of President George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed."

Poll finds broad support for Obama’s counterterrorism policies - The Washington Post


"The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.

And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35. Those numbers were provided to me by the Post polling team."

Liberals, Dems approve of drone strikes on American citizens abroad - The Plum Line - The Washington Post

given those numbers, I would be really amazed that circumstances were different only when concerned with rendition
Click to expand...

I find the drone strikes most disturbing, though I've never heard a liberal argue for them. The article concerning closing gitmo as democrats being forgiving. I think that is right. Most understand the fear mongering that accompanied his effort to close the rishon.

However, I see nothing about rendition. Do you?
 
Boo Radley said:
I find the drone strikes most disturbing, though I've never heard a liberal argue for them. The article concerning closing gitmo as democrats being forgiving. I think that is right. Most understand the fear mongering that accompanied his effort to close the rishon.

However, I see nothing about rendition. Do you?
Click to expand...

I'm a bit on the fence when it comes to drones.

On the one hand, I think once the decision has been made by the United States to kill some particular person, I'm not convinced the delivery system is all that important. Would an F-16 dropping a bomb be more acceptable than a drone dropping a bomb? What is the practical difference? Perhaps the more important part is how that decision was made, who was being killed, and why. I was not at all pleased with the decision to assassinate an American citizen without judicial oversight. Even a person overseas actively working against the United States. I figure that's a slippery slope. Hey, this American citizen in Oklahoma is totally a terrorist working against the US. Let's drop a bomb on his house. Court order? This man is an enemy of the state! It's a military action in a time of war! Disturbing thought.

However, I do have some qualms about increased used of drones in warfare. I think it dehumanizes the process. Let's say some day we can replace ground combat troops with robots too. Now we have a scenario where we can fight with zero casualties for us. So what's the big deal about going to war? Let's invade everybody! All the while forgetting that there is a serious and terrible human cost to warfare. As awful as it sounds to say, casualties on our side serve a very necessary purpose of reminding us that war is an absolutely horrific process that we should be avoiding at all cost.
 
Deuce said:
I'm a bit on the fence when it comes to drones.

On the one hand, I think once the decision has been made by the United States to kill some particular person, I'm not convinced the delivery system is all that important. Would an F-16 dropping a bomb be more acceptable than a drone dropping a bomb? What is the practical difference? Perhaps the more important part is how that decision was made, who was being killed, and why. I was not at all pleased with the decision to assassinate an American citizen without judicial oversight. Even a person overseas actively working against the United States. I figure that's a slippery slope. Hey, this American citizen in Oklahoma is totally a terrorist working against the US. Let's drop a bomb on his house. Court order? This man is an enemy of the state! It's a military action in a time of war! Disturbing thought.

However, I do have some qualms about increased used of drones in warfare. I think it dehumanizes the process. Let's say some day we can replace ground combat troops with robots too. Now we have a scenario where we can fight with zero casualties for us. So what's the big deal about going to war? Let's invade everybody! All the while forgetting that there is a serious and terrible human cost to warfare. As awful as it sounds to say, casualties on our side serve a very necessary purpose of reminding us that war is an absolutely horrific process that we should be avoiding at all cost.
Click to expand...

Not only does it dehumanize, but it is too blunt and too often includes civilians needlessly.
 
Deuce said:
Do you understand that these people are not being treated as prisoners of war?
Click to expand...

Do you understand that these people do no qualify for treatment as prisoners of war? That they have no rights? Have you read the Geneva Conventions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom