Shhh: Obama to continue rendition program for terrorists
posted at 4:45 pm on August 24, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
We already knew he was using “rendition-lite,” where instead of capturing detainees and then transferring them to foreign agents, U.S. intel would lead those agents to the suspect and let them make the bust themselves. Looks like we’re going to drop the “lite” now and go with the supersized version.
Rest assured, though, there won’t be any torturing done. Would shadowy foreign operatives lie?
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…
“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.
Stupid question: Isn’t the whole point of rendition to apply pressure to a detainee that couldn’t legally be applied in your own jurisdiction? If so, what’s to be gained by sending them to countries that don’t practice enhanced interrogation? Better to keep them here and let Obama’s new A-team sweet-talk them, no? Maybe The One wants rendered detainees to think they’re in for a rougher time from foreign agents, whose intimidating reputation might be enough to soften them up. But if that’s the case, how is rendition substantially different from, say, the CIA’s empty threat to harm Khaled Sheikh Mohammed’s kids? If fear is torture, isn’t the mere threat of harsh treatment implicit in rendition a form of torture too?
Meanwhile, in totally unrelated breaking news, Holder’s set to appoint a special prosecutor for CIA interrogators who threatened detainees. Exit question: Does that explain why they’re retaining rendition? After all the self-flagellation from the left about enhanced interrogation, now replete with the prospect of criminal charges against American intelligence, terrorists know perfectly well they have nothing to fear from being in U.S. custody. Jordanian custody, however…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
You’d better be damn glad we have one, and had one in the 1930’s and 40’s especially, else you would be posting comments here in German or Japanese, depending on which end of the country you reside in.
Oh, wait, HotAir wouldn’t, er…
Dave R. on August 24, 2009 at 7:11 PM
If it weren’t for that “military-industrial complex”, you wouldn’t have a computer to be spreading the idiocy you’re spawning right now.
Next?
Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2009 at 7:15 PM
Del Dolemonte,
Yes clearly, we don’t need a private sector any longer.
Just a giant welfare-warfare state who takes care of everyone, and a Supreme Court err Imperial Court to rule over us.
Spathi on August 24, 2009 at 7:19 PM
Notice that the president can’t enforce a a welfare state if he lacks a standing army (IRS counts as part of a standing army too.)
The two go together. We need decentralized government. Ideally we would destroy state governments in favor of local governments after the we get rid of the world government and the Federal Government, but we can’t push for everything all at once plus people might want to keep some government.
So long as States get nullification and people can move state to state to avoid poor tax systems, etc.
Spathi on August 24, 2009 at 7:26 PM
“Rendition” is as old and American as Apple Pie.
Prior to the Civil War, US Navy ships patrolling for slave smuggling ships in the Atlantic would interdict and seize any such ships they came across. If the Captain was a Southern sympathizer, he would haul them to SC or FL, where they would likely walk via jury nullification.
If the Captain was a Yankee or an Abolitionist, he would haul them to the Bahamas or Bermuda, hand them over to the British and let the Royal Navy execute them.
Techie on August 24, 2009 at 7:29 PM
If serious you are very very very naive
CWforFreedom on August 24, 2009 at 7:30 PM
This is parody right? Governance by homeowners association isn’t what most people idealize.
Techie on August 24, 2009 at 7:31 PM
This CIA probe should extend to the Bush lawyers, but Holder is too chicken for that.
Don’t worry, the CIA is probably burning its books rights now of any evidence against any wrong doing even the the probe is aimed only at low level people as it is.
Secret police tend to be above the law.
Spathi on August 24, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Techie,
It’s just Federalism.
But you can decentralize on a State level too, and put counties in charge of their own governance or well there are even more anarchist systems out there that work great. I hate referencing Hitler, but for lack of a better example, his plan in his book was to do away with the German States because he wanted centralized power.
The basic Libertarian agenda is to decentralize power, and that’s why Jefferson wanted the to prohibit the president from getting a standing army so that the States could get equal say.
Spathi on August 24, 2009 at 7:35 PM
Well that and the Constitution only allows for Obama to have a Navy not a standing army.
Standing armies are only permitted for a two year period during war times, and they need to be called up from the governors who can refuse their request.
The Air Force is clearly unconstitutional as a separate department.
Spathi on August 24, 2009 at 7:39 PM
I have a sneaky suspicion that terrorists will be running to turn them selves in to the US soldiers so they can get some R&R at our deluxe prisons where they can’t be asked anything but name, rank and serial number.
Herb on August 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Spathi:
Have you ever even read the Constitution? BTW, when the Constitution was written there was no Air force, because there were no flying machines.
Terrye on August 24, 2009 at 7:48 PM
That’s OK Spathi, I remember being young and knowing everything.
Meremortal on August 24, 2009 at 7:58 PM
Two days of Ramadan and look at the gifts
1. Release of Lockerbie bomber
2. CIA terror investigators to be persecuted
26 more days of Ramadan to go
Can’t wait to see what gift we get for Eid
macncheez on August 24, 2009 at 8:04 PM
Terrye,
Well ya you would have to add in a section for the Air Force if you wanted one with a Constitutional amendment.
However, the Constitution clearly says that a standing army can only be funded for two years and has to be drawn up (and congress must declare war.)
It does specify that he can have a permanent Navy though, but it’s the governors who get troops so that they don’t have to follow his orders if they are unconstitutional.
Spathi on August 24, 2009 at 8:08 PM
macncheez on August 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM
One of the best things Clinton did was devalue the presidency.
The executive is too much like a king. We’d be better off with Larry Flint as president than either Obama or Bush.
Spathi on August 24, 2009 at 8:27 PM
I have a sneaky suspicion that terrorists will be running to turn them selves in to the US soldiers so they can get some R&R at our deluxe prisons where they can’t be asked anything but name, rank and serial number.
Herb on August 24, 2009 at 7:46 PM
A year later they can open an ice cream shop and swim in the beautiful waters off Bermuda, on the taxpayer dime. Hey, ya’ never know!
NYconservative on August 24, 2009 at 10:14 PM
LOL! Didn’t that Imperial Court legalize abortion?
And that waoule be the same US Supreme Court that shot down Democrat Al Gore’s attempted theft of the 2000 Presidential Election by 9-0 and 7-2 decisions.
Fail.
Thanks for playing.
Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2009 at 11:15 PM
Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2009 at 11:17 PM
Fixed.
9/11 was his legacy. Never forget that.
Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2009 at 11:25 PM
Except for Valerie Plame.
Del Dolemonte on August 24, 2009 at 11:28 PM
ahhh…silly to use logic!! we all know it’s only torture when conducted by americans seeking to protect their fellow americans.
now when our enemies behead us on live webcasts (and remember, not everyone was a soldier. many were journalists or foreign-aid workers seeking to help people in a war zone), that of course, is not torture. that is just retaliation against an imperialist, crusading western society.
hypocrisy everywhere from those who seek to make us fight for our lives with one arm tied behind our back and hopping on one leg a la “what are you going to do, bleed on me.”
only thing is, we’re aren’t in a monty python movie. the decisions those in power now make will only hurt us and cause people to die further down the road.
photoboy74 on August 25, 2009 at 2:51 AM
best muslim president we’ve ever had
bluegrass on August 25, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3