It's "unlikely that CIA renditions under Obama...even remotely on the scale of...Bush admin."

[ProSense]

<...>

On Aug. 24, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Special Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies had finished its review. The United States will continue to send individuals to other countries, stated a Department of Justice Press press release, but the United States will seek "assurances from the receiving country" that the suspect will not be tortured. The recommendations specifically called on the Department of State to be involved in evaluating those assurances and for the Inspector Generals of the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security to submit annual reports on transfers conducted by each of their agencies. The report also recommends that agencies obtaining assurances from foreign countries insist on a monitoring mechanism or establish a monitoring mechanism, to ensure that the individual is not tortured. The specific recommendations themselves are classified, however.

Ben Wizner, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, told us that it's "unlikely that CIA renditions under Obama -– if they"re being conducted -– are even remotely on the scale of what occurred during the Bush administration." Wizner said we're not seeing a large number of families coming forward claiming that their loved ones were shipped off to other countries and tortured, which is what happened during the Bush administration.

link

Also: U.S. more open on detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan: ICRC

[aquart]

1. I feel so much better.

[mmonk]

2. LOL.

:thumbsup:

[ProSense]

3. Well,

speculation is always better than facts when outrage is the goal.

[tekisui]

9. The article you link is based on speculation, not facts.

...

Still, some experts are critical. Maria LaHood, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the DOJ Task Force recommendations are not particularly meaningful. "Neither assurances nor monitoring can prevent against torture," she said. She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was taken to Syria in 2002. Arar claims that he was severely beaten and tortured in the Syrian jail, despite assurances from Syria and consular visits from from Canadian authorities. LaHood said that it's hard to tell from policy recommendations if there's been an improvement or not.

Margaret L. Satterthwaite from the Center for Human Rights & Global Justice at New York University also criticized the DOJ task force recommendations. There is no mechanism in place for the individual subjected to rendition to challenge the transfer before an independent panel. Moreover, nobody outside the government actually knows the details of the policy, so it's hard to objectively evaluate whether the government is sticking to its promise.

We're not sure if we'll ever be able to issue a definitive ruling on this promise. The administration has announced new procedural safeguards concerning individuals who are sent to foreign countries. President Obama also promised to shut down the CIA-run "black sites," and there seems to be anecdotal evidence that extreme renditions are not happening, at least not as much as they did during the Bush administration. Still, human rights groups say that these safeguards are inadequate and that the DOJ Task Force recommendations still allow the U.S. to send individuals to foreign countries. We'll give the Obama administration credit for the steps it's already taken, but until we have a more definitive evidence that extraordinary renditions have stopped, this promise stays In the Works.

[ProSense]

12. "a Canadian citizen who was taken to Syria in 2002"

Obama wasn't the President in 2002.

The ACLU's statement was as good as any other statement they can make. So unless anyone has specific evidence that the practice is ungoing, this is good enough:

We'll give the Obama administration credit for the steps it's already taken, but until we have a more definitive evidence that extraordinary renditions have stopped, this promise stays In the Works.

[treestar]

10. Why not?

If things improve why is that not good?

[neverforget]

4. 1 is still too many

[Robb]

24. Not if you ask the other 99. nt

[neverforget]

26. Wow

[Robb]

31. Put another way

...It is nearly impossible for me to become more cynical.

[neverforget]

41. Torturing 1 or hundreds is wrong. The scale does not matter.

[Robb]

46. True.

Many things are wrong in the world. I applaud all efforts to make them less so, however.

One can do so without losing sight of the goal of a wrong-less world. The difference is between saying "That's good" and "That's good enough."

[DBoon]

5. Obama - less evil than Bush

not quite a ringing endorsement, is it?

[ProSense]

7. " if they"re being conducted " He's likely

less evil than Clinton.

[ixion]

6. keyword: "unlikely"

which makes the entire statement speculation, not fact.

[ProSense]

8. Yes, the ACLU

always speculates.

[DBoon]

15. by nature, it is hard to get good numbers on secret kidnappings

not like they have to issue warrants for arrest

[ixion]

43. so you deny the word 'unlikely' is speculative?

Interesting.

[hobbit709]

11. Scale has nothing to do with it.

ONE is too many.

Should we only go after a murderer who has killed more than one person or any murderer?

[ProSense]

13. Yesterday, he was no different from Bush, now

"ONE is too many."

And there is no evidence that there is even one.

[grahamhgreen]

20. Here's one, anyway

"ALEXANDRIA, VA. — A Lebanese citizen being held in a detention center here was hooded, stripped naked for photographs and bundled onto an executive jet by FBI agents in Afghanistan in April, making him the first known target of a rendition during the Obama administration."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/22/nation/na-rendition22

[ProSense]

29. Hmmm?

Raymond Azar is a citizen of Lebanon who was captured by American security officials in Afghanistan.<1><2><3> He is notable because he is reported to have undergone abusive treatment at the United States' Bagram Theater Internment Facility in April 2009 that had been explicitly prohibited by United States President Barack Obama the day after he took office on January 21, 2009.

link

He was abused in Afghanistan in April 2009?

[truedelphi]

78. Thank you for the

"Common" Sense reply.

How did the Holocaust begin? With six million? No, with just a few people no one cared to complain about having gone missing. And those people were at work camps, not all that badly treated, and some even eventually came home. (Circa 1934 to 1938)

But that beginning set up what was to come.

[northernlights]

14. I feel so much better now

"the United States will seek "assurances from the receiving country" that the suspect will not be tortured."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Seriously. Exactly how stupid and gullible do they (and their mouthpieces) think we are?!?!?! I'd be insulted if it weren't so funny...except that it's not funny. At all. Now I just want to puke and cry.


p.s. I really wish the unrec tally would show the way the rec does. I can't help but wonder how far into the hole this piece of tripe has fallen.

[ProSense]

17. Yeah, stupid ACLU. n/t

[northernlights]

it was Holder's quote. Did you even bother to read your own post?

:eyes:

[Angry Dragon]

30. I think Holder works for Obama

so it is Obama's words
Torture is illegal

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northernlights]

57. my point being it was not the ACLU's quote, as some would claim

And yes, doubtless Holder speaks for Obama.

[chimpymustgo]

16. Gross, sickening and PATHETIC.

[JanBrady]

18. What is the Obama admin. doing about the Bush admin. torture program? Not a damn thing.

By refusing to prosecute or even investigate its criminal predecessor, isn't the Obama administration therefore just as guilty of torture as the Bush administration. I also don't believe for one second that the Obama administration is overseeing the prisons where rendition prisoners are sent to ensure that they are not tortured or that they do anything about it if they were aware of it (which I believe they are fully aware of).

[ProSense]

19. "By refusing to prosecute or even investigate its criminal predecessor, "

And that has nothing to do with the OP.

[EFerrari]

23. Brad Manning turned to Wikileaks in part because he was processing

Iraqi prisoners into the hands of the Iraqis and to torture.

[Radical Activist]

28. Executive order ended Bush torture policies on Obama's first day in office.

That's doing something. I would like to see prosecution as well but claiming Obama has done "not a damn thing" is simply untrue. Also, the justice department investigation is ongoing so claiming that there's no investigation is also untrue. Maybe you would be less angry about Obama if you were better informed about what's really going on.

[Raksha]

21. And I'm supposed to feel good about that?

Why should there be ANY CIA renditions under Obama?

[mmonk]

22. From 2009

U.S. Says Rendition to Continue, but With More Oversight.

http://current.com/1j9di4c">Lebanese man is target of first rendition under Obama

In court papers, Azar said he was denied his eyeglasses, not given food for 30 hours and put in a freezing room after his arrest by "more than 10 men wearing flak jackets and carrying military style assault rifles."

Azar also said he was shackled and forced to wear a blindfold, dark hood and earphones for up to 18 hours on a Gulfstream V jet that flew him from Bagram air base, outside Kabul, to Virginia.

Before the hood was put on, he said, one of his captors waved a photo of Azar's wife and four children and warned Azar that he would "never see them again" unless he confessed.

[ProSense]

34. Like I said

Hmmm?

Raymond Azar is a citizen of Lebanon who was captured by American security officials in Afghanistan.<1><2><3> He is notable because he is reported to have undergone abusive treatment at the United States' Bagram Theater Internment Facility in April 2009 that had been explicitly prohibited by United States President Barack Obama the day after he took office on January 21, 2009.

link

From your first link:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.

<...>

Sending them to a country for detention and interrogation is how the U.S. is releasing Guantanamo prisoners. It is not synonymous with torture.

Also, the ACLU statement in the OP was made in Setember 2010.

[mmonk]

36. Why is the prison in Bagram still operational?

It is notorious internationally.

[Radical Activist]

40. So the guy was brought to the US for a public trial...

Yes, that was an interesting article you linked. But, I thought the conversation was about secretly sending prisoners to be tortured in foreign nations. The article you linked says he was read his rights, that the US sought permission for rendition, there's nothing secret about any of it, and also from the article...

Prosecutors, however, said that Azar was "treated professionally," kept in a heated room, offered food and water repeatedly and "provided with comfortable chairs to sit in."

[mmonk]

44. After a forced confession at Bagram.

[mmonk]

45. wrong place

[Radical Activist]

49. Which is the area he's from. So that wasn't extraordinary rendition.

He wasn't secretly sent off to some third party country for torture. He was arrested in Bagram and then brought to the US for a public trial. So basically, this is nothing like Bush's extraordinary rendition policies. This is the normal kind of rendition that happens between nations all the time. And we don't know for sure whether he was tortured or not.

If Obama's policies are so terrible then why do you have to exaggerate and mislead? Again your own link suggest you're making a big stretch...


Their case is different from the widely criticized "extraordinary renditions" carried out after the Sept. 11 attacks. In those cases, CIA teams snatched suspected Al Qaeda members and other alleged terrorists overseas and flew them, shackled and hooded, to prisons outside the United States without any arrest warrants or other judicial proceedings.

The FBI arrested Azar and Cobos with warrants signed by a federal magistrate. And the State Department, Talamona said, asked the government of Afghanistan "for its consent in advance to take these two individuals into custody and return them to the United States to stand trial. They consented to our request."

[mmonk]

51. Because I'm a liar and a fraud.

Or maybe because I do not support rendition to countries that torture nor do I support indefinite retention. I'm not making the case he is as bad as bush.

[Radical Activist]

55. So I guess your point in posting the link

was to show that the US is no longer doing those things. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Fuddnik]

70. Blindfold, hood, and earphones are considered torture in itself.

It's called sensory deprivation, and can drive someone totally insane and broken, in less than 24 hours.

[Radical Activist]

25. I read the Obama continued Bush-era rendition policies.

Clearly, that was untrue. Bush did not have Obama's new policies to ensure prisoners aren't torture in other countries.

I don't like being mislead. But for some reason there are those who enjoy it and keep going back to the same pundits for more misleading exaggeration. That's not progressive. It's gullible.

[EFerrari]

27. Obama's Pentagon processed Iraqi prisoners out to the Iraqis

who most certainly do torture. I guess those new policies need tweeking.

[Radical Activist]

32. Has Obama changed Bush's rendition policies?

Yes or No? That's the claim made by several prominent bloggers and pundits. Did they lie to you or not?

It's a dishonest stretch on your part to call it extraordinary rendition when turning prisoners over to their home country.

[Oilwellian]

33. Oh please....

What new policies "ensure" prisoners aren't tortured? Can you please point me to where those new policies are written? Thanks in advance.

[leftstreet]

38. +1

I would also be very interested in seeing these new policies

[Radical Activist]

42. Read the text and links in the OP.

Did you skip over the parts you don't like?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Riigghht. The CIA and State Department have proven themselves ever so trustworthy.

Not to mention humanitarian.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ProSense]

39. You don't have to trust them

The fact that the policy has changed and there is no evidence that the administration is not adhering to its policy is what matters.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. I don't. But, Obama obviously does.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

50. Why kidnap people and send them to third countries that torture then?

Can you explain that where it makes sense?

[ProSense]

52. Here

Rendition

And that definition is from a link you provided.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. arg by link

your most likely deliberate naivety over the rendition program, a program of outsourcing torture that has been conducted by both democratic and republican regimes since the 1980s in order to circumvent legal obstacles against torturing prisoners is noted.

If you wish to argue that this is not torture, or that the bullshit assurances of this administration are any different than the identical and equally bullshit assurances of prior administrations, go ahead, but use your words.

[mmonk]

59. Another assessment:

What is Obama's Rendition Policy?

I tend to agree with the last paragraph in this piece.

I'm not making the case it is the same under Obama or as bad as under Bush. I'm making the case it is still unworthy of a country based on due process by law.

[guruoo]

53. Have yet to see any proof of gov sanctioned torture happening since Bush

[Warren Stupidity]

54. So the point of this OP is "a little torture is ok"?

Seriously?

[ProSense]

61. No, that's not the point, and the OP doesn't remotely suggest that. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Yeah that does in fact appear to be the point of the OP.

[ProSense]

67. No, it isn't. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

72. yeah it is. nt.

[alsame]

75. Because now we're all supposed to support Suleiman in Egypt and

just overlook the torture stuff.

[Desertrose]

58. Torture is still TORTURE isn't it?

Thought Obama was gonna close Gitmo & stop the torture/renditions...

I seriously wonder how much the POTUS really runs things......

We should be ashamed of this country.

[ProSense]

60. "Thought Obama was gonna close Gitmo & stop the torture/renditions..."

President Obama Correctly Rebukes Congressional Attempt To Hinder Transfer Of Guantánamo Detainees To U.S.

The OP is pretty clear about the President's policy.

[jwirr]

62. That may be true but I do not want to be a part of any of it. It just cheapens

the nature of our country.

[ProSense]

64. And no one

should want to be a part of conflating legitimate processes with illegal ones, especially accusing someone of sanctioning torture without evidence.

[Catherina]

63. No level too low. n/t

[ProSense]

65. Yeah, facts are the lowest. n/t

[Autumn]

68. Oh well as long as it's only a small number,

that is so much fucking better. That's really a change. And I'm sure since Obama is a "democrat" it's a much nicer rendition.

[ProSense]

69. "And I'm sure since Obama is a 'democrat' it's a much nicer rendition."

The number has nothing to do with it, the policy of opposing torture does.

Yes, President Obama is a Democrat, and rendition is not synomymous with torture.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. keep repeating "rendition is not torture"

I'm starting to be convinced.

[ProSense]

73. Can you

provide any evidence of torture? The President has rejected torture, and the OP states that there is no evidence to claim otherwise.

[Autumn]

80. The policy of opposing torture means diddly squat

if they are still doing renditions. As far as I am concerned rendition is torture,for the families, for the individual being held and not allowed trial. You have nothing but speculation that they are not torturing.

[ProSense]

81. " As far as I am concerned rendition is torture

for the individual being held and not allowed trial. "

What the hell does rendition have to do with indefinite detention?

"You have nothing but speculation that they are not torturing."

And you have no evidence that the President has sanctioned torture.

[Agony]

74. "The specific recommendations themselves are classified, however. " Such BULLSHIT!

This is cynical policy meant only to soften up the american people to continue to accept torture... uncivilized crap.

[ProSense]

76. "This is cynical policy meant only to soften up the american people to continue to accept torture"

Ridiculous.

[Agony]

77. Yes, ridiculous that where the rubber meets the road the policy is SECRET!

[ProSense]

79. Right,

because Bush's policy that abolished classified information was how his administration's activities were discovered.