Whoops
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1244.story

Current hope and change tabulation:

Warrantless wiretapping: No change
Rendition: No change
Torture: Change, with escape clause
Guantanamo: Change (hooray, that's arguably the least important issue of the 4 listed here)

More on the Human Rights Watch flip flopping here:
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2 ... watch.html

I will say this. I don't have a problem with rendition necessarily. If there's a terrorist walking around in Pakistan, send a predator drone.. If they're walking around Zurich, you probably can't do it.

My issue is with how it was conducted under the bush admin, with some people being held in locations outside the boundaries of US and International law, tortured and never given trial. I don't see anything that will lead me to believe that will change.

And you never will, because you don't want to. For Obama, the glass will always be half empty to you.

I've been entirely consistent on these issues.

It's a shame you can't hold the people you voted for accountable. Must suck to live with such low expectations.

To claim that this administration is the same as the previous administration is to ignore basic reality.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... ion-c.html

"01 Feb 2009 09:12 pm

The Rendition Canard

For some reason, many people on the right and a few within the CIA feel the need to minimize the difference between Obama and Bush on the terror war. And so we are greeted with whoops and hollers because the Obama administration will return to the rendition policies of the GWH Bush and Clinton administrations. Note, as Hilzoy does, what this isn't. It is not the practice of "extraordinary rendition" that the Bush-Cheney administration pioneered to supplement its own torture program. It is the practice of capturing terror suspects and rendering them to non-torturing foreign governments for detention, interrogation or prosecution..."

Much more at the link. All in the same vein.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Rendition is a SERIOUS fucking issue that doesn't get nearly enough bad press.

The problem, Bearne, is that by US law, people taken through rendition cannot be brought to the US. European countries want nothing to do with these people, and the one place where the US would send them, Gitmo, is on a 1-year timetable to close.

That, combined with the CIA's claims that they tried to take measures to ensure their suspects were not tortured when sent to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Jordan.

The link you cited claims only that the CIA must make a best-faith decision that the countries they send these people to will upload the Convention Against Torture. That language won't stand up in a court, and isn't even really binding. It's a loophole. If they want to close the loophole, they will state that they will only send prisoners to countries that have signed the convention, or list the countries. Leaving things open to interpretation is where the phrase "ask for forgiveness, not permission" originated.

You realize that the CAT is a convention that countries have signed and agreed to abide by, right? Oh, let's take a look at some of the notables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... st_Torture

Jordan.
Pakistan.
Saudi Arabia.

What a list, clearly, those countries don't participate in torture.

The really shitty part to all this is that the value of renditions is subject to debate, as the Times article quotes intelligence officers.

At the end of the day, you seem to want us to trust the administrated to do the right thing. Clearly, Humans Rights Watch seems to be giving Obama one hell of the benefit of the doubt. Renditions is still a practice of picking someone up off the street without the knowledge of the sovereign government, and holding them without right to a trial. After all the fucking hand-wringing and mental anguish about how bad the US is, why the hell should we give Obama the benefit of the doubt? This is not transparency, it's the same "trust me" demagoguery that we've been watching for the past 8 years.

Two new articles that are interesting on this topic.

First, Richard Clarke (remember him?) writes an op-ed for Boston.com. Very insightful - I didn't know that we housed so many convicted terrorists at Supermax.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... enditions/

It begs the question of why sending these people to any country other than bringing them here and trying them under US law is such a problem. I believe Bush went around this when he declared them enemy combatants.

It's also a level-headed look at how renditions are sometimes necessary without notifying the local government.

The second thing is a bit more disturbing. Apparently the Bush admin threatened to withhold the sharing of intelligence with the British government if the trial in Britain regarding Binyam Mohamed's extraordinary rendition and torture was made public. Not surprising for the Bush admin to do that, I guess.

But the Obama admin released a statement thanking the British government for covering it up.

http://aclu.org/safefree/torture/38662prs20090204.html

Money quote:

I still think you guys are dreaming if you think they're going to shine the light on what happened.

that's what Obama said about State Secrets BEFORE the election.

What did they say yesterday?

The 180-degree reversal of Obama's State Secrets position
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... /10/obama/

Read the whole thing.

How's your torture accountability theory going, Surcam? I guess the question is: As Obama validates and continues a lot of Bush admin policies regarding things like rendition, state secrets, warrantless wiretapping, etc., does it validate what Bush did, or show that Obama is a hypocrite?

You keep saying it, but it does not make it true: Obama is not continuing extraordinary renditions, unless you have sekr3t infoz that we the public do not have access to.

Trust in the Obama.

He's right, Fribur (minus all the h8orade). I need more to see more transparency in the lifting of previous policy. Once again, rendition is a SERIOUS fucking problem. And that's as far as I'm going with that.

If there really is a problem, then I'm certainly concerned. (very fucking concerned, mind you!)

More:

Solicitor general nominee says 'enemy combatants' can be held without trial
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 8432.story

Wow. I really am shocked at this. Why close Guantanamo if you're just going to continue the same policies elsewhere?

Why should we care?

hahahaha

Outsourcing terrorist interrogation

Because it's a matter of time before it's a common practice against domestic populace. The key word being common.

Also because it is a very clear signal that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, will twist and 'interpret' the law to be whatever they want it to be. I hoped, regardless of who won, that we wouldn't see a furthering of the unconstitutional means the Bush team used to govern us. Sadly, it won't happen for at least another 4 years.

Well, there's always Russ Feingold.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

Hopechangery at its best:

I'm fine with that. War is war. Torture them for all I care.

I'm not.

Yea, I'm disappointed in that as well.

Not that it excuses it in the slightest, but fortunately "hopechangery" revolves around more than one issue =)

Not something I'm necessarily happy with settling on and I want to see it changed, but I'll settle with a few bad moves and missteps for a President that represents good philosophy and good courses of action on the majority of issues.

I hope the Obama administration is held accountable!

Assuming he maintains his position on this I wouldn't mind seeing an investigation into his administration, either =)

_________________

Just out of curiosity, what issue is keeping your hope for change alive?

You name it, any number of issues(particularly those pronounced during the campaign) where McCain and Obama ideologically differed.

So, nothing? Just a vague hope for change with nothing to back it up? And of course another reference to how things are going in that other universe...

So McCain and Obama are identical on the issues now? huh.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19114.html

First, they block public disclosure of torture that happened in one case. Now, they block details of the wiretapping initiative in another.

Oh, and the Pentagon releases a report that Guantanamo meets the criteria of the Geneva Conventions.

Meanwhile, there's a report in the Guardian that Binyam Mohamed was beaten as recently as last Saturday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/fe ... d-injuries



How are we right back to where we were before, with government agencies basically clearing themselves of wrongdoing..?

Assuming this was pointed at me, huh? Who ever said that?

Your question:



Venen's statement:



Your response:



Perhaps I misunderstood?

I could copy/paste the list of issues from Obama's website if that would convince you it's more than "nothing". Or I could just reference what I said.

If your suggestion is per Fribur's response, I too would have to wonder exactly how Obama and McCain were both the same on the issues. Certainly on a few of them they were the same, but not the majority.

Again with the alternate universes. If you really have so much trouble disguishing between "McCain would absolutely have done X" and "McCain probably would have done X"(not to mention the "EVERYONE is saying it!" line, classic Kula) I can recommend a few good English for Dummies websites for you. Not really too hard to grasp the distinction between the two =)

As during the campaign, you just cannot articulate a single policy that makes you believe that Obama will be who you thought he was, that gives you hope for the kind of change you think we need.
I'm not sure you can even imagine how superficially your views come across when all you can say is basically, 'well, he's Obama and McCain would have been worse'. It's so frustratingly similar to what we heard 4 years ago, and 3 years ago: 'He's sincere and if Kerry had been elected we would have had another attack'.
Obama is one of the most bafflingly competent conmen we've seen, and after W. that's saying alot.

More bad news:

Lawyer says Guantanamo abuse worse since Obama
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/ ... 25?sp=true

Mixed with some small hope:

Why a war crimes fact-finding commission could uniquely enable prosecutions
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... secutions/

The best part of the second article is this paragraph, which is my biggest hope:

Actually reading the article, it seems pretty Pro-Obama. Yeah, just reading the headline might give you the impression of, "Obama made it worse!" but it's more, "Those assholes are trying to squeeze as much as they can out of it before Obama shuts them down."

Good for us. we as citizens will never know half of what they got from these people and what it help stop.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

I don't get you, Devil. As a conservative you don't trust the government to run any kind of programs within out country. Yet, you sound completely happy trusting that the government really has locked up evil people in Gitmo. I wonder if you can see the total disconnect there or not.

Hit reply too soon.

It's like-- "torture potentially innocent people with my money? Yeah, who cares. Feed kids on a lunch line who have irresponsible parents? OH HELL NO."

I have never said I don't trust the Government, I am for Small Government. I don't think that closing Gitmo is in the best interest of the country. That's all.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

yeah sounds about right. Although they are two different things. One is Military and is needed for the safety of all of us and our way of life. The other is taking care of dead beats and teaching there kids that somebody else will always take care of you.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Well Fribur, in these confusing and trying times, you can always believe in me. I'm always right.

Devyn, the problem with your retarded point of view is the acknowledged and oft-stated position that information obtained via the methods that have been publicized is often not reliable. Furthermore, many of the people in Gitmo were abducted from the streets of their native country, and many are also completely innocent. Please, let's not have this debate - you will lose.

But, I'm all for the investigation. Let's take a look and see just how much Dick and Bush protected us over the past 8 years.

Torture produces no meaningful information. People who are tortured will say whatever they think their torturer wants to hear.

It is purely a tool used by authoritarian states to strike fear and control the populace. It diminishes the humanity of its practictioners while decimating the soul of its victims. Torture offers nothing positive, ever, under any circumstances, to the society it is implemented by, except for power through fear to the select few.

It's a cancer.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

addendum: There are lots of things I will try to see all sides of. There are lots of devil's advocate positions I will entertain, or arguments I'll start simply to tweak someone on the boards.

Torture isn't one of them.

Our country is imperfect, because people are imperfect. But there is a world of difference between 'imperfect' and joining the ranks of Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's USSR. There's no defense for torture, ever. It's a line we never should have crossed, and our collective humanity has been dimished by it.

I'm giving some initial leeway on this to the current Administration simply because I feel like, similiar to the end of apartheid, we need the truth to come out, and that takes time. If that means that people walk away without jail time in exchange for publically stating what happened, by whom, where, when, and why, I can live with that. But if there's no progress in a few months, it will be time to start bringing public pressure onto the Administration.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Ummm wrong name
Retarded point of view? Oh you mean a different point of view than your own, the name calling does not do your argument any good. I would love to read some real info on the innocent people at Gitmo, so please give me some info.

As for the investigation if you want to go there, start with Carter and work up to present, don't leave out the Majority parties of both the House and senate.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Yeah, torture is just...ugh...and having a "torture center" all nice and set up for that express purpose...

I gotta go with Bearne on this one. It's awful.

Thanks Bean.

I must say that I am not for torture, but I am also not against it. I think that if one person is tortured to save many lives then I think the end is just.

The argument about NLEC, is an interesting one. I can say that I feel bad for the detainees that were wrongly "take" to Gitmo. I also feel bad for the people in prisons that have been put there wrongly, but I don't think they should shut down all the prisons and let everybody out, thats what my view on Gitmo is. I believe that torture is very bad, and so is war, so is death, these things will happen no matter what we say or what we do.

But just remember I am a uneducated retard, as was pointed out by some other members of this forum.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

"'Repent, Harlequin!' said the Ticktockman.

There's nothing "small" about a government that tortures.

You know what. Why bother?

Myself and others have already had this debate on the boards, I'm really not inclined to point out the obvious. It's a damn shame that you really think that torture leads to concrete information. And it's also somewhat surprising that someone who is otherwise fairly educated on the issues isn't aware of the very well publicized accounts of people picked up off the street, tortured and then returned years later, having no connection with terrorism whatsoever. Given that there is no habeus corpus for any of these people, it's a wonder if you think there are more in there that are also innocent. Plenty of Real Bad Men (tm), I'm sure, and unlike the Obamacons, I don't want them released in a shallow, mostly symbolic pander to the leftwing, closing of Gitmo.

I mean.. we even talked about it already in this VERY THREAD. You know, the cases of the Obama admin adhering to the state secrets provision in the trials that some of the innocent people have brought forth against the government.

It's clear to me, though, that there is a part of our population that is completely willing to sacrifice our constitutional rights in a blind, terrified race to be "safe". There's another part of our population that recognizes people died to protect those rights, and changing our way of life to stem off attacks isn't winning, it's losing.

I guess put me in the middle on this one. I believe that we, the US, do not need to treat our hostile captives in a non-humane manner. I also believe that enemy combatants don't get automatic protection under the US Constitution (they are fighting to destroy it then why would it cover them?) If we are to be the leader of Democracy and Freedom then we have a responsibility to the world to be the leader in how we conduct ourselves in times of war.

I do not believe that "Closing Gitmo" is the correct answer either. I do believe that we should remove the cloak of shadows that goes on there and change some of the policies if they have not already. I do believe that you can get information from the detainees if questioned correctly. I believe that they can use all the methods that our police forces use to question combatants. I do not believe that they have a right to an attorney but there should be some watchdog over the process that ensures the safety of the detainee.

I do believe that no US Citizen (regardless if they renounced their citizenship or whatever) should ever be held in a Gitmo type center. Even the Una-bomber and the OKC bomber had rights. We can not strip the rights of a citizen if they are attacking us.

The whole "torture only produces bad info" thing has irked me for a while now. It's become somewhat folklore that it never works, but I'm wondering what the factual basis is. I won't doubt that there aren't studies out there done, but I do question their validity.

I think it's hard to assume that ALL of the information will be bad. So we can at least say, if you push a person to a certain point, they COULD potentially give some good intel. The question is what you DO with the good or bad intel, specifically the bad. It also depends on the situation.

If you're asking where person X is, and the person gives up the info after a certain amount of torture: What do you do? Do you rush in headlong with 100 percent reliance on that intel? NO. How hard would it be to simply scout out the location given from a distance to substantiate the claim? If done carefully enough, you don't lose any time, at worst you lose some time from the bad info - but time you otherwise would've had anyway without intel. Minimal risk, substantial chance of gain, especially if you have someone who can read a person like a book when the person gives the info.

That's not the argument I would fall back on. Personally I'm against torture, but for moral reasons. But if we're talking about pure efficiency, I don't think there's a way to suggest it isn't effective IF done right. You'd just have to assume that the people in charge of that kind of operation weren't stupid enough to jump recklessly on anything that comes out of a tortured person's mouth.

And again, tortured people will say anything yada yada to get out of the situation. That again relies on a person who is smart enough to read the telltale signs of body language and general expression to see if they have information to give up and are holding something back, or if they're just shouting random shit out. Knee-jerk responses to pain with bullshit information can't be THAT hard to figure out, given the proper training.

It sucks ass, and I wish it wasn't very efficient, but we're just deluding ourselves with an easy justification for our position.

I am trying to learn more about this hole issue. So I have questions, and you seam to have very strong options on this issue.


Are you saying that they are going around and picking up US citizans and bringing them to Gimo?



According to Article One of the US Constitution, the right to a writ of habeas corpus can only be suspended "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety." Habeas corpus was suspended during the Civil War and Reconstruction, in parts of South Carolina during the fight against the Ku Klux Klan, and during the War on Terror.

Doesn't that mean that only US Citizens are entitled to Habeas Corpus?





This confuses me as well, it sounds like to me your saying the US citizens are being held/taken.

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.