It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama preserves rendition two days after taking office

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
So basically the OP provides a severely biased source. Then another poster provides a snippet from the Huntington Post, that if you were to but read another line would have completely invalidated any present conspiratorial fears. The widespread hysteria found so often on ATS is clearly a result of information spreading too quickly without posters being able to validate their sources.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by cognoscente]




posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shawn B.
Oh, wow, this isn't the same as Guantanamo Bay, this is actually worse.

This is very bad, very bad.

Evil evil evil



America has been doing this and far worse since its foundation, how does
this suddenly make Obama evil? Though you gotta remember that all
prisoners of guantanamo and similar prisons are innocent. People are
innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and none of them have been
given a trial yet.

That means they are not terrorists, they are not criminals, they are
innocent, they should receive a fair trial on american soil. In such trials,
they will probably all be released anyway, as they've all been taken
prisoner on hearsay and rumor, without a shred of evidence of terrorist
activities.

If you've bothered to listen to the testimonies of people that have gotten
out of guantanamo, then you would know this. Then you would also know
that guantanamo isn't a prison, but a death camp. Countless people have
been tortured, raped, abused and executed there without any kind of
evidence of guilt.. all innocent men and women.


[edit on (1/2/09) by Wehali]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Great! The Obama people don't want these guys in gitmo, don't want them on US soil, don't really know what to do with them, so Obama says "Hey guys/girls/girlygirls etc, I'll ban gitmo, and water boarding if you vote for me yay!" So then what does he do? He does exactly what he said he would do. Only now we have to Out-Source jobs to other countries and, instead of water boarding, they'll get drill holes in their head. great job!

It's funny to think, the Obama people might not have known this would happen.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by aboxoftrix
 


I think Obama people expected too much out of him. I do like him. I don't believe he would end an age old tradition of American torture. America without torture... do you know how unAmerican that would be? It's like having an appel pie without apples.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I am an Obama supporter.

If this is true then I am very disappointed and I hope to hear some explanations.

another debatable "broken promise" here
edition.cnn.com...#/video/us/2009/02/01/levs.obamas.broken.promise.cnn

I just want Barack to know that he should remain true to himself and the american people. And not underestimate our intelligence.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


To be fair, he's doing the best he can. It all comes down to whether or not you trust him with handing over these criminals to responsible authorities. Did you think the detainees would be shipped over to the continental U.S.? How well do you think that would go for tax payers? The following article from the executive article really says it all.



...(ii) 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.


That there is a special task force is a first for any President dealing with detainees who are suspected of posing a threat to national security. Back in the day they would be tortured, and likely executed, without recourse.

Really, I'd like to hear all of your alternatives. Where would these detainees be sent? They're still convicted criminals. Are you disappointed because you believe this is only another thing to delay their trials?

Where did all of you honestly think these people would go when Guantanamo was promised to be closed? Perhaps you thought they would be given trials immediately and either released or sentenced? Where is all this disappointment with Obama coming from?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscenteWhere would these detainees be sent? They're still convicted criminals. Are you disappointed because you believe this is only another thing to delay their trials?


Aren't you speaking out of both sides of your mouth here? The issue of rendition does not refer to anybody convicted of anything. It refers to 'persons of interest' being farmed out to be tortured by others who do not carry America's fine respect for international law and human rights.

So how can you be convicted and not have been sent to trial yet?

As to where they gonna go, PM Steve, of Canada, is now being pressured to return our citizen Khadr home. But he'll only do it if he can make the opposition look bad.

Because human rights are incidental to the political game.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by aboxoftrix
 


Well if that avatar is your picture you are a beautiful young lady that if for some strange reason (a bureaucratic mistake) were somehow suspected of being a terrorist. Mr CIA man could come to your house, take you away, and put you on a plane headed to Saudi Arabia! They would not need a warrant for your arrest and would disregard your civil rights without hesitation! You could be held without charges in Saudi Arabia for as long as they like with no due process. You would become a detainee!

Then you would be tortured into confessing to a crime you did not commit and sign a written confession.

I voted for Obama but I worship the Constitution and Civil Rights! Pres. Obama needs to have his memory jogged and it is up to us citizens to get off our a$$es and make that happen.

One more thing, terrorism is a crime and should be treated as such! I know they hold these bad guys to get information. However, I believe these "detainees" should be charged, given a trial and if convicted of murder they should be executed! Maybe their sentence could be commuted to life without the possibility of parole if they provide valuable information. Once in prison we will see how the general prison population treats these murderers!

edit spelling



[edit on 2-2-2009 by Leo Strauss]

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Leo Strauss]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
I am an Obama supporter.

If this is true then I am very disappointed and I hope to hear some explanations.

another debatable "broken promise" here
edition.cnn.com...#/video/us/2009/02/01/levs.obamas.broken.promise.cnn

I just want Barack to know that he should remain true to himself and the american people. And not underestimate our intelligence.


Wow one of them shows their faces after the threads been up for 2 days.

Just keep on pretending this isn't happening and that Bush is still President....

How lame is this man?

You got these liberals breathing down our necks for 8 years It's just nice to get them off my daym back but at the same time they are really annoying.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
Wow one of them shows their faces after the threads been up for 2 days.
You got these liberals breathing down our necks for 8 years It's just nice to get them off my daym back but at the same time they are really annoying.


But you didn't answer my questions...go back to page one...same day as you posted. Sorry to be on your daym back, and all...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
He said he would during the campaign, thats why.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by cognoscente
To be fair, he's doing the best he can. It all comes down to whether or not you trust him with handing over these criminals to responsible authorities.


And that is what everything about this presidency boils down to. Do we (you, I) trust the man to make fair, ethical, honest decisions?

Clearly (sorry I use that word so much but it fits) many do NOT trust him with an inch. We've just been through 8 years of a "leadership" that was totally untrustworthy, dishonest, conniving and corrupt. Now, we have a new leadership and many are holding a microscope to Obama that they WISH they'd held to Bush.

Could this policy be abused? You bet. And easily. But could it be used responsibly and carefully to make sure we're safe from some of the "baddies" out there? Yes. Will there be mistakes? Absolutely. But could this policy be necessary in the world we live in today? I'm afraid so.

BTW, Where was this outrage when Bush and Clinton before him were allowing it?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by cognoscente
To be fair, he's doing the best he can. It all comes down to whether or not you trust him with handing over these criminals to responsible authorities.


And that is what everything about this presidency boils down to. Do we (you, I) trust the man to make fair, ethical, honest decisions?

Clearly (sorry I use that word so much but it fits) many do NOT trust him with an inch. We've just been through 8 years of a "leadership" that was totally untrustworthy, dishonest, conniving and corrupt. Now, we have a new leadership and many are holding a microscope to Obama that they WISH they'd held to Bush.

Could this policy be abused? You bet. And easily. But could it be used responsibly and carefully to make sure we're safe from some of the "baddies" out there? Yes. Will there be mistakes? Absolutely. But could this policy be necessary in the world we live in today? I'm afraid so.

BTW, Where was this outrage when Bush and Clinton before him were allowing it?


Nice to see you get your daily Barack Obama posts in early....


Always defending BO....Because you get paid to....? Hrmmmmmmmm

Personally, this is a disgrace Obama should be ashamed....



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
Nice to see you get your daily Barack Obama posts in early....

Always defending BO....Because you get paid to....? Hrmmmmmmmm




Ad hominem argument ... consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
...
Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic...


Source



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
I am an Obama supporter.

If this is true then I am very disappointed and I hope to hear some explanations.

another debatable "broken promise" here
edition.cnn.com...#/video/us/2009/02/01/levs.obamas.broken.promise.cnn

I just want Barack to know that he should remain true to himself and the american people. And not underestimate our intelligence.


I'm sorry, but Obama never intended to be true.

There is only one thing he wanted.
img67.imageshack.us...

In way over his head, inexperienced, I predict he will break under pressure.

[edit on 112828p://bMonday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
This is priceless. Obama gets elected on 'change' from the way things have been done. He gets elected on the 'end the war - close GITMO' etc etc thought process. But then Obama BACKDOORS IN TORTURE.

Yep. That's change we can believe in.



Originally posted by Frankidealist35
What made you think he was going to change that policy of rendition?

'Change, Hope, Unity' and all the rainbows and unicorns that come with that rhetoric made people think he'd change it all. His rhetoric was that he was always against the war (which is a lie on his part) and that GITMO had to close and torture had to end. People expected it ALL to end based on Obama's rhetoric and public attitude toward these things. That rhetoric is what got him elected. He did nothing to change their impressions because he knew that was what would get him the POTUS position.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I'm an Obama supporter

because the only alternative to him was to KEEP THE ONES WHO DID THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE IN POWER!

Obama didn't build Guatonamo

did not go to war for profit in Iraq

did not throw the constitution in the toilet after wiping his you know what on it

did not give all the money the world will ever earn to his greedy overlords

his task was to undo the crimes committed and simultaneously rebuild the Republic

this is step to nowhere in that direction if it falls out as described

so no not sorry I voted for him but yeah if he goes back on his word, no of course I don't support that

I didn't support it when Bush did it and I won't support Obama doing it either



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by invisiblewoman
I'm an Obama supporter

because the only alternative to him was to KEEP THE ONES WHO DID THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE IN POWER!

Obama didn't build Guatonamo

did not go to war for profit in Iraq

did not throw the constitution in the toilet after wiping his you know what on it

did not give all the money the world will ever earn to his greedy overlords

his task was to undo the crimes committed and simultaneously rebuild the Republic

this is step to nowhere in that direction if it falls out as described

so no not sorry I voted for him but yeah if he goes back on his word, no of course I don't support that

I didn't support it when Bush did it and I won't support Obama doing it either


Obama is the President now.

He is accountable for both wars, G-Bay Prison, the economy.........

So, basically I'm not sure why you are excusing this developing story by blaming Bush somehow.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
read it again conservativejack I'm not excusing him

read it again


and Bush is responsible for his part but Obama okaying rendition is a deal breaker for me


also as a conservative I'm surprised you're not jumping for joy aren't you guys the torture and rendition party?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
You might want to read this article.

Renditions Buffoonery



In a breathless piece of reporting in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, we are told that Barack Obama “left intact” a “controversial counter-terrorism tool” called renditions.
...
The Los Angeles Times just got punked. Its description of the European Parliament’s report is not accurate. (Point of disclosure: I served as an expert witness in hearings leading to the report.) But that’s the least of its problems. It misses the difference between the renditions program, which has been around since the Bush 41 Administration at least (and arguably in some form even in the Reagan Administration) and the extraordinary renditions program which was introduced by Bush 43 and clearly shut down under an executive order issued by President Obama in his first week.

There are two fundamental distinctions between the programs.


Or this one...

Did Obama Really Create a Loophole for Rendition?



But civil rights lawyers who’ve read Obama’s orders think the concerns are overblown, and the plain language of the executive orders Obama issued in the first 48 hours of his presidency suggest just the opposite.

“The reality is we don’t know what he’s doing or what he plans to do in this area other than he set up a study team to make recommendations on whether and how a rendition program would continue,” Chris Anders, legislative counsel for the ACLU in Washington, told me earlier today.

“People are reading into the provision that it does not take away short-term detention authority from the CIA,” Anders said. “That could be meant to protect a variety of different things. Rendition would only be one of them. But if you look through the executive orders, there are a number of places where President Obama kind of kicked the can down the road in terms of making decisions or putting them off.”


Or maybe this?

The L.A. Times, Obama & renditions



The L.A. Times article is wildly exaggerated and plainly inaccurate. Harper's Scott Horton and The Washington Monthly's Hilzoy have typically thorough explanations as to why that is the case. Anyone with any doubts should read both of their commentaries. Suffice to say, the objections to the Bush "extraordinary rendition" program were that "rendered" individuals were abducted and then either (a) sent to countries where they would likely be tortured and/or (b) disappeared into secret U.S. camps ("black sites") or sent to Guantanamo and accorded no legal process of any kind. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Obama will continue any of that and, as Hilzoy documents, there is ample basis to believe he will not. Unfortunately, I don't have the time today to dissect the Times' claims in detail, but Horton and Hilzoy both say virtually everything that should be said on the topic.

I do, though, want to add two brief points:

First, it is very important to keep in mind that there are numerous factions with a very compelling interest in claiming that the Obama administration is preserving and continuing the most extreme Bush "counter-terrorism" policies, regardless of whether or not it's true:


You may want to check this out...

The LA Times on Rendition



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:
...
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.


It's good to be educated on the whole thing.
I feel a LOT better.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join