PDA

View Full Version : Obama Embraces Rendition!!??



Sev
01-03-2013, 07:33 PM
How can this be. Where is the outrage????
Oh right. He's a democrat.
Good thing he's not a white republican or it might be a problem. http://forums.azbilliards.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gifhttp://forums.azbilliards.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Nothing to see here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...98a_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/renditions-continue-under-obama-despite-due-process-concerns/2013/01/01/4e593aa0-5102-11e2-984e-f1de82a7c98a_story.html)
Renditions continue under Obama, despite due-process concerns

By Craig Whitlock, Published: January 1

The three European men with Somali roots were arrested on a murky pretext in August as they passed through the small African country of Djibouti. But the reason soon became clear when they were visited in their jail cells by a succession of American interrogators.

U.S. agents accused the men — two of them Swedes, the other a longtime resident of Britain — of supporting al-Shabab, an Islamist militia in Somalia that Washington considers a terrorist group. Two months after their arrest, the prisoners were secretly indicted by a federal grand jury in New York, then clandestinely taken into custody by the FBI and flown to the United States to face trial.

The secret arrests and detentions came to light Dec. 21 when the suspects made a brief appearance in a Brooklyn courtroom.

The men are the latest example of how the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Renditions are taking on renewed significance because the administration and Congress have not reached agreement on a consistent legal pathway for apprehending terrorism suspects overseas and bringing them to justice.

Congress has thwarted President Obama’s pledge to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and has created barriers against trying al-Qaeda suspects in civilian courts, including new restrictions in a defense authorization bill passed last month. The White House, meanwhile, has resisted lawmakers’ efforts to hold suspects in military custody and try them before military commissions.

The impasse and lack of detention options, critics say, have led to a de facto policy under which the administration finds it easier to kill terrorism suspects, a key reason for the surge of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Renditions, though controversial and complex, represent one of the few alternatives. (Gee. I remember somebody calling me an idiot for suggesting that "When in doubt. Take em out" would be the future.)

“In a way, rendition has become even more important than before,” said Clara Gutteridge, director of the London-based Equal Justice Forum, a human rights group that investigates national security cases and that opposes the practice.

Because of the secrecy involved, it is not known how many renditions have taken place during Obama’s first term. But his administration has not disavowed the practice. In 2009, a White House task force on interrogation and detainee transfers recommended that the government be allowed to continue using renditions, but with greater oversight, so that suspects were not subject to harsh interrogation techniques, as some were during the George W. Bush administration.

Scarce details in case

The U.S. government has revealed little about the circumstances under which the three alleged al-Shabab supporters were arrested. Most court papers remain under seal.

In a statement, the FBI and federal prosecutors for the Eastern District of New York said the defendants were “apprehended in Africa by local authorities while on their way to Yemen” in early August. The statement did not spell out where they were detained or why.

Page 1 of 3.

Soflasnapper
01-03-2013, 07:56 PM
It's an open question how much a president is really in charge of the national security state. Obama did, after all, issue an executive order to close down the suspected terrorist jailings at Guantanamo Bay, to little effect once the NIMBY Congress refused alternate sites or monies to pay for them.

But does that mean Obama 'embraced' Gitmo? Now 'wants' to keep it open? Or is he instead being thwarted from his true position by others?

Might be the same thing with rendition. Might not, of course, but note, the WaPost says the practice 'continues' 'under' Obama, and it does not say 'Obama embraces rendition,' which even you pose as a question, not a claim.

In any event, it's a heinous practice that must inevitably lead to gross injustices on the innocent, and extra-judicial punishment even of the guilty.

This tends to happen whenever the people demand 100% security, which cannot be obtained.

I know you aren't comparing the two, but if you had to-- rendition, or extra-judicial killings of suspects? (Answer: Dos Equis!)

LWW
01-04-2013, 04:30 AM
It's an open question how much a president is really in charge of the national security state. Obama did, after all, issue an executive order to close down the suspected terrorist jailings at Guantanamo Bay, to little effect once the NIMBY Congress refused alternate sites or monies to pay for them.

But does that mean Obama 'embraced' Gitmo? Now 'wants' to keep it open? Or is he instead being thwarted from his true position by others?

Might be the same thing with rendition. Might not, of course, but note, the WaPost says the practice 'continues' 'under' Obama, and it does not say 'Obama embraces rendition,' which even you pose as a question, not a claim.

In any event, it's a heinous practice that must inevitably lead to gross injustices on the innocent, and extra-judicial punishment even of the guilty.

This tends to happen whenever the people demand 100% security, which cannot be obtained.

I know you aren't comparing the two, but if you had to-- rendition, or extra-judicial killings of suspects? (Answer: Dos Equis!)

If you read Obama' EO on GITMO you will see that it was merely a wordsmithed do used to pimp dembots ... and insure that it stayed open.

Qtec
01-04-2013, 05:56 AM
When you give a POTUS extra powers he will use them. You can't call foul just because the POTUS is not from your party.

Don't trample on me????????????


AT&T's Implementation of NSA Spying on American Citizens

31 December 2005

I wrote the following document in 2004 when it became clear to me that AT&T, at the behest of the National Security Agency, had illegally installed secret computer gear designed to spy on internet traffic. At the time I thought this was an outgrowth of the notorious Total Information Awareness program which was attacked by defenders of civil liberties. But now it's been revealed by The New York Times that the spying program is vastly bigger and was directly authorized by President Bush, as he himself has now admitted, in flagrant violation of specific statutes and constitutional protections for civil liberties. I am presenting this information to facilitate the dismantling of this dangerous Orwellian project.
AT&T Deploys Government Spy Gear on WorldNet Network

-- 16 January, 2004

In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.

The physical arrangement, the timing of its construction, the government-imposed secrecy surrounding it, and other factors all strongly suggest that its origins are rooted in the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program which brought forth vigorous protests from defenders of constitutionally protected civil liberties last year:

"As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant." The New York Times, 9 November 2002

If the Patriot Act had been called the Big Govt Power Grab Act, would it have passed?..because that's what it was.

Q

LWW
01-04-2013, 11:04 AM
You can't call foul just because the POTUS is not from your party.

Q

Of course you can ... you did it for 8 years.

Soflasnapper
01-04-2013, 11:18 AM
If you read Obama' EO on GITMO you will see that it was merely a wordsmithed do used to pimp dembots ... and insure that it stayed open.

I don't think that's so, and that it was Congress, either believing the NIMBY concerns themselves, or fearing the backlash of the NIMBY argument, should they allow bringing those guys to the mainland for their long prison sentences, or holding prior to trial, or holding forever without trial.

But I'll admit not having read it in some 4 years. Can you point out the language that supports your claim? Or in the alternative, show me another person's analysis that this is true, by reference to the language you mention is there?

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald is highly critical of Obama's policy EO on Gitmo, but not because he didn't intend for it to be closed. See here: http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/ Greenwald says it is because he intended the closing as a PR move, while maintaining the prisoners in a similar extra-Constitutional permanent imprisonment without trial, etc. That is, to keep the same policy, but close its marquee venue. I think Greenwald has it right.

Soflasnapper
01-04-2013, 11:28 AM
Of course you can ... you did it for 8 years.

Not really. What Bush was doing was attempted in the Clinton years, after the first WTC bombing, and then after the OKC bombing. Basically a PATRIOT Act type bill allowing for much of the 4th amendment-offending intrusive searches without warrants, and etc. The GOP quashed those efforts, probably rightly so, and I suspect their arguments gained ample Democratic support as well.

So, to review: in the Clinton '90s, Congress decided to refuse this very large big government power grab (which would have substantially incurred on Constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights). In the Bush era '00s (a poetically accurate year range for that cipher of a leader), his administration began to exceed lawful limits on warrantless spying as of February of 2001 (well before September's tragedy). He lied about it, stating that the FISA warrant process was in place and that everything being done was according to that or other law.

So the foul crying was over this scenario and some others, which were equally decried when Clinton merely attempted to codify openly these changes in open Congressional action.

Eventually, the Bush administration had to admit what was going on as it was discovered and revealed, and they finally made it 'legal' by pushing through legislative permissions. It's now been legal since 2008.

Gayle in MD
01-04-2013, 12:19 PM
The article makes it pretty clear, that the president's wishes to address these tactics, appropriately and openly, have been obstructed by the Repiglican Congress.

What's he supposed to do, just ignore terrorists and their protectors and supporters?

Repiglicans wouldn't let him close Gitmo, wouldn't let us try them here in civil courts, wouldn't let us send them to an empty Federal Prison, to be held and tried later on charges, this is what happens when one political Party has only one goal, to obstruct everything!

Guess you aren't aware, the Republicans in the House and the Senate, have the lowest approval ratings of any political party or group, EVER!

Don't you feel a bit silly continuing with all of thesse silly threads, and trumped up accusations, over and over, when none of them are correct, nor rational?

Just wondering.

Soflasnapper
01-04-2013, 02:10 PM
WASHINGTON — In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States.


Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.



Congress voted no in both Houses, then Democratic-majority controlled. It wasn't just the GOP at all, but the majority of the Dems as well.

LWW
01-06-2013, 07:40 AM
If you read Obama' EO on GITMO you will see that it was merely a wordsmithed do used to pimp dembots ... and insure that it stayed open.

I don't think that's so ...

That's because you haven't read it, which I pretty much knew.

Read section 8A/B/C at the end.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00212#position

Soflasnapper
01-06-2013, 12:22 PM
I re-read it before I replied, and I stand by my opposition to your take.

Your link is to the roll call listing for the TARP bill in 2008, btw.

On the odd chance that there is any 8A/B/C there, please provide a hint of where to look.

As to those clauses in the original EO, that would be this language:


Sec. 8. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



Which is boilerplate and routine, and no automatic escape clause. OF COURSE it should be interpreted and implemented in a way consistent with applicable law-- that's part of the oath of office. OF COURSE he needs to get it funded through appropriations, or else he would be taking over the function of Congress, and acting against the Constitutional provision of Section 9-- 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'

And OF COURSE he won't allow the use of this attempted change of policy to pierce the veil of the sovereign immunity of the nation against claims from those parties.

None of the clauses, then, were obviously insurmountable ahead of time. Remember W also said Gitmo's holding prisons ought to be closed, as did many other Republicans. One would assume the more leftward Democrats in Congress would feel the same way on their own, AND if for no other reason, as they held majority control in both houses of Congress, follow their newly elected president's preferred policy and campaigned upon campaign promise.

I don't see it as Obama's perfidy and doublecross setting up failure ahead of time, but the Democratic Congress's, spooked by the NIMBY demogoguery.

LWW
01-06-2013, 06:36 PM
Tell me again about how you don't slavishly defend the regime.

Sev
01-06-2013, 07:32 PM
Seems the defense of Obama is pretty weak.
Always somebody else's fault.

Soflasnapper
01-07-2013, 07:30 PM
Tell me again about how you don't slavishly defend the regime.

I thought you explained that by 'the regime' you had in mind the Democratic establishment, although I may be remembering wrong, or you may have just been making an excuse for an over-broad criticism that you meant to apply to the Obama administration per se, when that wasn't really correct.

I don't know how throwing the Democrats in Congress under the bus as responsible is defending 'the regime' in that sense, although that may not be who you mean in this case.

Do you remember clarifying your intended meanings to me for several terms you use-- the cabal, the regime, maybe one or two more? Could you find that? (If I look I'll simply find hundreds to thousands of cites of the various words in unrelated threads.)

Soflasnapper
01-07-2013, 07:34 PM
Seems the defense of Obama is pretty weak.
Always somebody else's fault.

I would agree that Obama did not get the Congress to do this. However, it IS the Congress that had to do it, as to the appropriations side.

I do not see any language in the EO that intentionally sabotaged the effort from the Gitmo, er, git-go, I meant of course. I think mentioning NIMBY is exactly the right blame-laying, and the NIMBY concerns were from craven Democrats along with craven and partisanly opposed GOPrs.