Rendition 2.0, Messiah-style

What say you now, disciples of The One?
Has torture been elevated to a respectable method of gaining information?
Will await your rationalizations.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool
The role of the CIA's controversial prisoner-transfer program may expand, intelligence experts say.
By Greg Miller
February 1, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- 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.

If the LA Times is right to claim that the Obama administration has left open the possibility of extraordinary renditions, that would be a huge problem. However, I don't think it is. Here it helps to have spent some time reading the actual orders. The order called "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations" contains the following passage:

"Sec. 6. Construction with Other Laws. Nothing in this order shall be construed to affect the obligations of officers, employees, and other agents of the United States Government to comply with all pertinent laws and treaties of the United States governing detention and interrogation, including but not limited to: the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A; the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 2441; the Federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. 113; the Federal maiming statute, 18 U.S.C. 114; the Federal "stalking" statute, 18 U.S.C. 2261A; articles 93, 124, 128, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 893, 924, 928, and 934; section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd; section 6(c) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109 366; the Geneva Conventions; and the Convention Against Torture. Nothing in this order shall be construed to diminish any rights that any individual may have under these or other laws and treaties."

Part 1, Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture states:

"1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights."

Obama orders people to comply with the Convention Against Torture, and that Convention states that we cannot return people to states where there are substantial grounds to believe that they will be tortured. And nothing the Obama administration has done to date suggests to me that they would engage in the kinds of creative reading of legal documents that would allow them, say, to disregard Egypt's long record of torture in making this determination.

Moreover, Obama's Executive Order also establishes a commission one of whose goals is:

"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."

So in addition to announcing that the administration will obey the Convention Against Torture, the administration will also study not whether to send detainees off to be tortured, but how to ensure that our policies are not intended to result in their torture, and will not result in their torture. This seems to me like a very clear renunciation of the policy of sending people to third countries to be tortured. His executive order also precludes any kind of secret detention of prisoners, and thus "secret abductions and transfers of prisoners":

"All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_02/016703.php

After having been in power for only 14-1/2 days, it seems that this administration has spent 13 of those days defending its ethics and rationalizing its string of broken campaign promises.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9649J682&show_article=1
Obama spokesman defends ethics standards
Feb 3 02:18 PM US/Eastern

WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite the tax problems faced by high-level nominees, and the exceptions made to the no-lobbyists pledge, President Barack Obama's spokesman is defending the administration's ethical standards. Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday, "The bar that we set is the highest that any administration in the country has ever set." During a briefing filled with questions about Tom Daschle's decision to withdraw from consideration to be Health and Human Services secretary, Gibbs pointed to experts who describe the administration's ethics rules as the strongest in history. He also said those experts recognized that Obama would need to make exceptions to his pledge to run an administration free of former lobbyists. Obama's choice to become the No. 2 official at the Defense Department recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. And his choice as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, lobbied through most of last year as an anti-tobacco advocate.

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

After having been in power for only 14-1/2 days, it seems that this administration has spent 13 of those days defending its ethics and rationalizing its string of broken campaign promises.

Time to check the Obameter meter.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Promises kept-6
promises broken-1
compromise-1
stalled-1
in the works-18


Sorry Jack, according to the record,you are wrong. Please play again!

Sorry, sparks - you forgot this one.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php

One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.

That makes two out of six promises broken before his assprint has even made a dent in the Oval Office chair. By my math, he has lied 33.33333% of the time. If that is acceptable to you, then that is what makes you a textbook Democrat.

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

After having been in power for only 14-1/2 days, it seems that this administration has spent 13 of those days defending its ethics and rationalizing its string of broken campaign promises.

Time to check the Obameter meter.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Promises kept-6
promises broken-1
compromise-1
stalled-1
in the works-18


Sorry Jack, according to the record,you are wrong. Please play again!

Sorry, sparks - you forgot this one.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php

One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.

That makes two out of six promises broken before his assprint has even made a dent in the Oval Office chair. By my math, he has lied 33.33333% of the time. If that is acceptable to you, then that is what makes you a textbook Democrat.

I didn't forget anything, I just posted the figures from the Obameter. They put the lobbyist controversy under compromise. The things I would like to see Obama and Congress fix in the next four years are, in no particular order, a minimum level of healthcare for everyone, cleaner air and water, better regulation of banks and Wall street, government support of green technology for automobiles and power generation and all of our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republican party is in complete disarray right now. What do you think they need to do to rebuild trust and faith voters once had in them?

Bringing up the R's ONCE AGAIN to defend Obama does nothing...

...but make you look like an - and I promise I'm not calling you a democrat either.

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

After having been in power for only 14-1/2 days, it seems that this administration has spent 13 of those days defending its ethics and rationalizing its string of broken campaign promises.

Time to check the Obameter meter.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Promises kept-6
promises broken-1
compromise-1
stalled-1
in the works-18


Sorry Jack, according to the record,you are wrong. Please play again!

Sorry, sparks - you forgot this one.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/11/03/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_30.php

One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race - and I've won. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won't find a job in my White House.

That makes two out of six promises broken before his assprint has even made a dent in the Oval Office chair. By my math, he has lied 33.33333% of the time. If that is acceptable to you, then that is what makes you a textbook Democrat.

I didn't forget anything, I just posted the figures from the Obameter. They put the lobbyist controversy under compromise. The things I would like to see Obama and Congress fix in the next four years are, in no particular order, a minimum level of healthcare for everyone, cleaner air and water, better regulation of banks and Wall street, government support of green technology for automobiles and power generation and all of our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sounds like a Socialist agenda.

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

sparks wrote:

happy jack wrote:

After having been in power for only 14-1/2 days, it seems that this administration has spent 13 of those days defending its ethics and rationalizing its string of broken campaign promises.

Time to check the Obameter meter.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Promises kept-6
promises broken-1
compromise-1
stalled-1
in the works-18


Sorry Jack, according to the record,you are wrong. Please play again!

[
I didn't forget anything, I just posted the figures from the Obameter. They put the lobbyist controversy under compromise. The things I would like to see Obama and Congress fix in the next four years are, in no particular order, a minimum level of healthcare for everyone, cleaner air and water, better regulation of banks and Wall street, government support of green technology for automobiles and power generation and all of our soldiers out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sounds like a Socialist agenda.

Most of this country supports things that are regarded as socialism.
Social Security, Medicare,Medicaid,Unemployment Insurance,disability coverage,the GI bill,Pell grants,federally insured student loans,federally insured banks and FHA are all socialist programs.Which ones do you oppose?

The politician's version of socialism: Tax, patronage, tax, bailouts, tax, outsource jobs overseas without awarding those that don't;

Campaign that isn't reformed, especially where they get to keep the money, even after being ousted as a govenor; hiring cabinet members that owed taxes that supported these socialist programs that they were to head.

I think I got'cha on that, cuz the politicians are actually living off of socialism. Taxing people to make their livings; taxing people to support their pension plans, though they do not pay into social security/ taxing people so they can stay in the careers they never went to college for in the first place.

Without socialism, we wouldn't need politicians. Well, not 3/4 of them, anyway.

How many gov't employees in 1970 compared to 2009? Google that.

Ya know, I just got to thinking..back in the early '70s when I worked for the labor relations board U.S. Office of Personnel Mgmt), next to the regional directors' offices, I was called, "Bimbo" by a boss in the LR office to "go get me a cup of coffee" every morning, while his feet were extended on top of his desk, laid back in his chair, and reading the Wall Street Journal. I got bored after awhile and worked every dept., especially if he was out of town.

I got promoted to the Regional Director's Office, working as an assistant secretary to the Regional Director, John Cohan. I remember at one point getting sick and tired of waiting on these lazy fat heads, got them to get rid of my boss and the department of labor relations. But they blew it with me..instead of coffee, I had to go in the conference room after assembling papers for each department head, and still had to stick around in case they needed coffee.

You know what I did? I sent a memo out to every department. "Your agenda for today's meeting is three feet away from the door of the conference room. I set up the coffee maker inside your conference room. Please feel free to stop by the desk set up next to the conference room and pick up your reports on your way in and place them in front of you before "roll call", and don't call me unless you need more sugar or cream for the coffee sitting inside your door, enough to fill 50 people when you are an elite few.

I got a raise and promoted to secretary, instead of "Assistant Secretary" later that week.

Now, tell me is it any different today? I quit over that crap.