Anti-Import Provision in Stimulus Bill Angers Foreign Leaders  |   Home  |   West Bend Hit By Recession

Confusion Over Renditions

On January 23rd.

Barack Obama embarked on the wholesale deconstruction of George Bush’s war on terror, shutting down the CIA’s secret prison network, banning torture and rendition, and calling for a new set of rules for detainees.

On January 31st.

Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism—aside from Predator missile strikes—for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

Which is it?  Are we still doing renditions or not?

Posted by Owen at 0921 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. So should we or shouldn’t we, Owen?

   Posted by scott on January 31, 2009 at 1001 hrs
   
   
   

2. I think we should, but I’m still trying to figure out what our president thinks.

   Posted by Owen on January 31, 2009 at 1026 hrs
   
   
   

3. Perhaps, as the article suggests, that ending torture and long-term imprisonment in secret prisons is enough to uphold our principles while maintaining the ability to deal with suspected terrorists.

   Posted by scott on January 31, 2009 at 1032 hrs
   
   
   

4. Are we still doing renditions or not?

   Yes.

   Welcome to the Land of Obama-Oz.

   Posted by dad29 on January 31, 2009 at 1054 hrs
   
   
   

5. Gosh, you’re right.  Obama isn’t doing anything Bush isn’t doing.  We were all duped, but we’re too stupid to know it!

   Posted by scott on January 31, 2009 at 1057 hrs
   
   
   

6. Based on this, Obama is finding out out about the real world and that terrorists are real.  Further, he is finding out that being a president is not about a continous campaign and that he actually has to govern.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2009 at 1121 hrs
   
   
   

7. Gitmo for whatever reason (even though it was just like other “secret” prisons) caught the ire of everyone who was against the war in the first place, so for symbolic reasons O “shut it down” The same things done there and elsewhere will continue - they just won’t have a name attached to them - it’s just some “secret prison” somwhere.

   All show.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2009 at 1132 hrs
   
   
   

8. I guess we could call it ‘hope & changeless’.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2009 at 1142 hrs
   
   
   

9. banning torture and rendition - while maintaining the ability to deal with suspected terrorists

   scott: Interesting how you avoided dealing with point - the word “banning”...but you did hit this part on the head - We were all duped, but we?re too stupid to know it!

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2009 at 1652 hrs
   
   
   

10. I’m sorry, i don’t know what you’re getting at.  I said ending torture and long-term imprisonment in secret detention centers.  Perhaps that’s enough to both preserve our values and combat terrorism.  You think otherwise?  Say so.

    Posted by scott on January 31, 2009 at 1656 hrs
    
    
    

11. I agreed with Bush’s methods, since I’m not squeamish about dealing with people whose desire is to kill us, and I never put much stock in the “tarnishing our image” argument.

    The point of the post is that Obama is using one position for public relations, and another for policy. Which do we believe, and debate? But of course…most of his supporters will never notice or care because the depth of their attention is the original sound bite.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2009 at 1707 hrs
    
    
    

12. But renditions are OK Scott?!  What do you think will happen in the secret prisons they get disappeared to?  At least with Gitmo, we knew who was there.  If you get disappeared somewhere by the CIA, nobody will know it.  Nobody will be there to represent you.  God knows what will be done to you, or if you will survive the encounter, or want to when they’re done doing to you what they’ve decided to do.  It is a horrible, undemocratic, and absolutely shameful practice that all Americans should be against.  It stands against everything we’re supposed to stand for.

    Posted by Nick on February 02, 2009 at 0739 hrs
    
    
    

13. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/02/renditions/

    Posted by scott on February 02, 2009 at 1741 hrs
    
    
    

14. Well, if all you’re going to do is link to an article with no explanation… then:

    http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/still-flip-flop-my-fellow-liberals-push.html

    Posted by Nick on February 03, 2009 at 0848 hrs
    
    
    

15. I didn’t really know if anyone was still following this thread, Nick.  I wanted to enter that “into the record” as it were simply so that the liberal’s point of view was adequately represented—not to prove something one way or another.

    Posted by scott on February 03, 2009 at 0942 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.