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