• 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

WillRockwell said:
The OP claims rendition will be expanded. What I said is that when the issue is addressed, I expect it will be ended.
Click to expand...

As I asked before . . .

What's to review?
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Goobieman said:
So... when can we expect to hear calls from Leftists that President Obama should be impeached for condoning renditions?
Click to expand...

President Obama should be impeached for condoning renditions. (Not really, it just needs to be fixed and wanted to play along)
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Harshaw said:
As I asked before . . .
What's to review?
Click to expand...
That's right.
By not ending it on The Dawn of The New Era, He allowed it to continue.

So... when can we expect to hear calls from Leftists that President Obama should be impeached for condoning renditions?
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Renditions themselves are not illegal. Renditions to countries where there is reasonable suspicion that the person will be tortured (Egypt, Syria) is. So it looks to me like Obama is being pragmatic by not doing away with renditions altogether, and he's doing the right thing by making sure renditions don't violate U.S. and international law.

It's good to have an intelligent person at the helm again.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Binary_Digit said:
Renditions themselves are not illegal.
Click to expand...

Standard, judicial renditions are not at issue here. You're equivocating.


It's good to have an intelligent person at the helm again.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the spinning is in full force.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Binary_Digit said:
Renditions themselves are not illegal. Renditions to countries where there is reasonable suspicion that the person will be tortured (Egypt, Syria) is. So it looks to me like Obama is being pragmatic by not doing away with renditions altogether, and he's doing the right thing by making sure renditions don't violate U.S. and international law.

It's good to have an intelligent person at the helm again.
Click to expand...
So he doesn't know yet whether they violate law or not, meaning that charges by the left during the campaign, that Bush was sending prisoners off to secret prisons for interrogation illegally, are unsubstantiated.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Binary_Digit said:
Renditions themselves are not illegal. Renditions to countries where there is reasonable suspicion that the person will be tortured (Egypt, Syria) is. So it looks to me like Obama is being pragmatic by not doing away with renditions altogether, and he's doing the right thing by making sure renditions don't violate U.S. and international law.
Click to expand...
I get it now!
When Bush does it, its unconstitutional and impeachable; when The Secular Messiah does it, its 'pragmatic'.
Silly me for not seeing this before.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Harshaw said:
Standard, judicial renditions are not at issue here. You're equivocating.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. Read the very next sentence after the one you quoted. Actually I'm pointing out the difference. Which is exactly the opposite of equivocating, TYVM.

American said:
So he doesn't know yet whether they violate law or not, meaning that charges by the left during the campaign, that Bush was sending prisoners off to secret prisons for interrogation illegally, are unsubstantiated.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say they are "unsubstantiated" considering we have renditioned people to Egypt and Syria. Some of those people who turned out to be innocent (software engineer from Canada, for one) came back from those countries with tales of torture. Bush should be innocent until proven guilty, but there is reasonable grounds for suspicion and that's why I support Obama's task force to get to the bottom of things.

Goobieman said:
I get it now!
When Bush does it, its unconstitutional and impeachable; when The Secular Messiah does it, its 'pragmatic'.
Silly me for not seeing this before.
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous attempt at spinning my argument into something it's not.

If Obama allows renditions that violate international torture laws to continue, that would be impeachable. Until then, Obama is innocent until proven guilty too, so I'll wait for this task force to finish their work and present Obama with their findings before I start calling for his head.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Binary_Digit said:
No, I'm not. Read the very next sentence after the one you quoted. Actually I'm pointing out the difference. Which is exactly the opposite of equivocating, TYVM.
Click to expand...

OK.

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.
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Rendition is used to give someone with tons of violations from a different jurisdiction back. Not scooping up possible suspects.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Goobieman said:
I get it now!
When Bush does it, its unconstitutional and impeachable; when The Secular Messiah does it, its 'pragmatic'.
Silly me for not seeing this before.
Click to expand...

You are slow, aren't you. Obama HAS NOT YET ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF RENDITION.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

WillRockwell said:
You are slow, aren't you. Obama HAS NOT YET ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF RENDITION.
Click to expand...

"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."
Click to expand...

As I said . . .

What's to review? If (non-judicial) rendition in and of itself is an evil, what's there to discuss or address?
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Harshaw said:
As I said . . .

What's to review? If (non-judicial) rendition in and of itself is an evil, what's there to discuss or address?
Click to expand...

My apologies. I read the actual Executive Orders and did not see the quote referenced from an administration official.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Harshaw said:
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.
Click to expand...
:confused:
Click to expand...

Harshaw said:
"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."
Click to expand...
What's to review? If (non-judicial) rendition in and of itself is an evil, what's there to discuss or address?
Click to expand...
This is why I tried to point out the difference between rendition (extraordinary or not) and rendition to countries where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person will be tortured (extraordinary or not), in violation of international laws and treaties.

Obama needs to review the U.S. rendition process, and do away with renditioning people to countries where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person might be tortured. To bring the U.S. into accordance with the treaties we have ratified, and to avoid the calls for impeachment that Bush recieved for violating those treaty obligations.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Binary_Digit said:
This is why I tried to point out the difference between rendition (extraordinary or not) and rendition to countries where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the person will be tortured (extraordinary or not), in violation of international laws and treaties.
Click to expand...

That's not what you were talking about. And if it was, you did not at all make it clear.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Harshaw said:
That's not what you were talking about. And if it was, you did not at all make it clear.
Click to expand...
Renditions themselves are not illegal.


But...


Renditions to countries where there is reasonable suspicion that the person will be tortured (Egypt, Syria) is.


Does that help?
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Binary_Digit said:
Renditions themselves are not illegal.


But...


Renditions to countries where there is reasonable suspicion that the person will be tortured (Egypt, Syria) is.


Does that help?
Click to expand...

Really. Give me an example of a legal extraordinary rendition. Because that's what we're talking about here, not judicial renditions.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

the audacity of hope is right.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

We're not party to OPCAT, so I guess inspections are out of the question.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Harshaw said:
Give me an example of a legal extraordinary rendition.
Click to expand...
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).
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

Binary_Digit said:
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).
Click to expand...
US transfers a Gitmo detainee to Syria where he is celebrated by Osama bin Laden
That's legal.

US transfers Gitmo detainee to a British pub, where he is force to drink many adult beverages resulting in the detainee babbling al Qaeda plans.

That's illegal.
 
Re: Obama shuts Gitmo but expands renditions

There was just a story on Rachel Maddow's show about this. It is believed the quote to LA Times came from a Bush holdover, that Obama has expressly rejected extraordinary rendition, 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.
 
Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times


The role of the CIA's controversial prisoner-transfer program may expand, intelligence experts say.

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.

The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.

The European Parliament condemned renditions as "an illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a Boeing Co. subsidiary accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.

But 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.
Click to expand...

And it just keeps on coming. Perhaps Obama really was a moderate in liberal's clothing.

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:

And if you really want to laugh, compare the stance of Human Rights Watch under Bush to its stance under Obama:

Under Bush, HRW declared that:

The US government should:

Repudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic and permanently discontinue the CIA's rendition program;

Disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001, including detainees who were rendered to Jordan;

Repudiate the use of "diplomatic assurances" against torture and ill-treatment as a justification for the transfer of a suspect to a place where he or she is at risk of such abuse;

Make public any audio recordings or videotapes that the CIA possesses of interrogations of detainees rendered by the CIA to foreign custody;

Provide appropriate compensation to all persons arbitrarily detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody (emphasis added).
Click to expand...

Human Rights Watch rightfully opposed the practice of torture by the Bush administration, but it also demanded the cessation of rendition and that victims of the practice receive compensation.

The organization's recommendations went even farther, however. In order to make sure that the program ended, Human Rights Watch recommended that other countries should:
Refuse to cooperate in secret detention and rendition efforts, and disclose all information about past cooperation in such efforts (emphasis added).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Given that these are incredibly important issues and moral imperatives, one would assume that their stance would remain firm under Obama, right?


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."
Click to expand...

:rofl
 
The Democratic Party knows that a true liberal cannot possibly win an election.

centrism is where it's at. Any other option and you're a tree-huger, or a fascist.
 
Arch Enemy said:
The Democratic Party knows that a true liberal cannot possibly win an election.

centrism is where it's at. Any other option and you're a tree-huger, or a fascist.
Click to expand...

It's socialist. Fascism is a right wing ideology. Jonah Goldberg is full of crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom