Crossed Fingers

Preserving (also instituting) the constitutional rights of non-American-citizens caught in action against America were a key part of the Obama campaign.
Now that they’re in charge and actually have to deal with terrorists?

Not quite:

But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.

The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the United States is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.

“Obviously you need to preserve some tools — you still have to go after the bad guys,” said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. “The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice.”

“controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe”?  Yes – the circles that got President Obama elected, at least in part over the collective vapors because Europe didn’t heart us anymore!

One provision in one of Obama’s orders appears to preserve the CIA’s ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA’s secret prison sites “do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.”

Despite concern about rendition, Obama’s prohibition of many other counter-terrorism tools could prompt intelligence officers to resort more frequently to the “transitory” technique.

Well, I’m sure Chris Matthews will be all over this one.

56 thoughts on “Crossed Fingers

  1. I respectfully, but profoundly disagree with the President on this. Much as you disagreed with Bush on spending, we both – and I mean to highlight I understand this of you, and did – can and will disagree with the President of our chosing.

    My reasoning is simple – but I would like to think, thorough.

    If we feel our Constitutional rights are inalienable, then they are also universal. Things which are “right” are to be afforded and more than that, supported as a “Shining City on a Hill” example. They are also the key and best examples and defense that we are better than “them”, we don’t sacrifice our values for practicallity, we don’t let extremism win when the chips are down.

    There is rather a much longer ethical argument about the corrosive effects of situational ethics, degraded moral character etc.., but I’ll not bore your readers with it(or you if it would) – though as you like, I’ll send it to you.

    Bluntly, rendition is wrong – if these are our prisoners, we should ensure we maintain the high standards we have heretofore lived by. In short, I disagreed profoundly with Bush, just because the President is different doesn’t mean I’d change my tune – even if Obama does.

  2. Here’s another way to look at it, peev.
    If rendition had prevented 9/11, not only would 3,000 innocent people have been spared their lives, we’d have no guantanamo, we’d have no patriot act.
    No civil liberty is an absolute, and for good reason. To adhere to the highest possible standard you undermine the security that is the bedrock of freedom. Another 9/11 event would be very, very bad for civil liberties.

  3. However Terry, there’s little evidence that rendition, or eating purple pudding, would have done anything.

    You’re essentially arguing that I should disprove a negative, i.e. prove it wouldn’t have stopped it. You obviously know I can’t, nor could anyone, so to me, that’s not a valid argument.

    Clearly no civil liberty is absolute – as the 1961 case (as I recall) said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. However, that’s not really what we’re discussing. If we had solid evidence that the people involved were undoubtedly going to attack us, or attack us again, there is no requirement to simply try them or release them, until hostilities end, they can reasonably be held without trial. The challenge of course with alleged terrorists are that in many cases the “alleged” portion is pretty dubious, and we wound up holding people (in a very significant number of cases) who were in no way doing anything other than defending Afghanistan, or even worse, were just unlucky enough to be called a ‘terrorist’ by some Afghani warlord, who took his $5000 for doing so, and said “TYVM for getting rid of my political enemy.” The suicide pact doctrine/ruling was about spies caught in the US (iirc) with the clear intent of doing harm to the US if let go. I obviously ‘get’ that they cannot simply be given a trial and freed if not convicted, but I wonder if ‘we’ as a country get, these situations aren’t the same.

  4. Sorry, I meant to conclude with..

    In the case of Rendition, we are FAR better off quoting the ‘suicide pact’ defense, using it to establish on-shore prisons where the prisoners are held as POW’s – rather than spiriting people away to avoid being treated with applicable law – to places where they may be freely tortured. We look little better than places like Chile or Argentina during their military dictatorships when we do stuff like that. My point is, establish the law, move the law if you must, and then live within it, rightly and proudly.

  5. “My reasoning is simple..”…simple musings from a simpleton for simple people to read simply.

    I think that’d be a great slogan for Peevee’s Playpen.

    ‘Bammy & Co. have *just started* getting the full story, and their actions, so far, have betrayed the message that as regards the war against terrorists, Bush was spot on.

    The beauty of the corner that ‘Bammy has painted himself in is that even if he manages to avoid a major blunder in dealing with terrorists, the simpletons that elected him will be tossing him under the bus because Gitmo will still be in operation two years from now. The fact that we may not have had a NBE attack because of that is completely lost on our friends with pointy heads.

    Heck, I look forward to some great writing from Grace Kelly on the subject!

    Meanwhile, if they are smart, the GOP leadership will be shining a flashlight into the gaping hole where the US Treasury used to be and taking advantage of asking millions of unemployed Americans “Are you better off than you were two years ago”.

    Gonna be some good times a-comin’ friends.

  6. Peev:
    “I respectfully, but profoundly disagree with the President on this.”

    To think… those words actually came out of Miss Peev’s piehole.
    😆

  7. “a Capitol Hill aide says that the administration also is planning a study of more aggressive interrogation methods that could be added to the Army manual — which would create a significant loophole to Obama’s action Thursday.”

    Obama favors even “more aggressive interrogation methods“.

    When will Obama reject Mcdonalds Made Global Warming?

  8. I can see the memo..

    To: President Obama
    From: Hillary
    re: Breaking news

    Good morning Mr. President.

    It has come to my attention that Penigma has publicly issued a respectful, but profound disagreement with your position vis-a-vis rendition and extended interrogation.

    I suggest we add this to tomorrow’s morning briefing agenda and mark it for immediate action. We really need to get in front of this before it goes viral.

    Regards,

    Hil

  9. Shiftee fantasized: “The beauty of the corner that ‘Bammy has painted himself in is that even if he manages to avoid a major blunder in dealing with terrorists, the simpletons that elected him will be tossing him under the bus because Gitmo will still be in operation two years from now.”

    You are an amazingly out-of-touch jackass, Shiftee. You really think President Obama’s going to lose votes (to whom, Palin?) as an incumbent claiming the security situation is more serious than he thought? Haha! Lord you’re simple!

    Obama has absolutely nothing to lose politically by being “tough on terror,” to adopt, temporarily, the worldview of you paranoid authoritarian types. To the extent Obama wants to close Gitmo, it’s because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. If he changes his mind based on new “threats,” who in the middle is going to bolt? Who on the left will vote Republican? It’s the same game your boy played to get reelected in ’04. But it works a lot better for Dems, cause it plays against type. Nixon-to-China, dontcha know.

    You rightwing kooks can’t exactly complain if he doesn’t close offshore prisons. You’re on record as lovin’ em. And if the far-left wants to protest, let ’em. They have no alternative candidate. And they’ll give the president a chance to look like a centrist.

    Haha, dumbass Shiftee!

  10. Peev, if I’m understanding you correctly you are making the point that we don’t know if rendition could have stopped 9/11, and that is true. However I believe you were making an absolutist argument that rendition is wrong under any circumstances.
    In your first comment you used the words ‘inalienable’ ‘universal’, and especially the phrase ‘we don’t sacrifice our rights for practicality’ (I think that statement is demonstrably wrong, but I’ll just move on) If you are not making the argument that rendition is never justified a priori then you, me, Obama, and Bush are all on the same side.

  11. Obama has absolutely nothing to lose politically by being “tough on terror,” to adopt, temporarily, the worldview of you paranoid authoritarian types. To the extent Obama wants to close Gitmo, it’s because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. If he changes his mind based on new “threats,” who in the middle is going to bolt?

    Little did you know that Bush wasn’t really a paranoid authoritarian type, he just temporarily adopted their worldview!
    And, AC, the threat here isn’t that any dems are going to vote
    ‘R’ because of this. The political problem is that it opens the way for attack on his left flank. A few million votes for Nader or some other peacenik would not be a good thing for O in 2012.

  12. “claiming the security situation is more serious than he thought..”

    Oh, so he was an ignorant bufoon that was just lying his ass off for votes, but now he realizes that Bush was right all along….got it, Clown.

    I can’t wait to see those left wing cupcakes taking it to the streets….maybe I’ll start planting little flags with ‘bammy’s picture on them into piles of dog shit on the sidewalks to point them in the right direction.

    This is gonna be sweeet!

  13. “You’re on record as lovin’ em.”

    Show us that record, A-clown.

    What has Obama proposed to do with the enemy combatants? Nothing? Tell “The One” to get off his ass and make a decision for once.

    Many conservatives say we should have just shot the terrorists on the battlefield so we wouldn’t have to deal with you pansy ass pacifist left wing loonies.

  14. “Many conservatives say we should have just shot the terrorists on the battlefield..”

    As a consistent opponent of the idea that a sentence of “death” is reserved to One who is above the paygrade of anyone on this planet, I can agree that bumping those scumbags off in battle is an excellent compromise.

  15. K-Rod blathered: “Tell “The One” to get off his ass and make a decision for once.”

    So his two weeks as president have really been disappointing for you, eh K-Rod? Haha, you wingnuts are very, very funny.

  16. Let’s see. As a human being, Obama has a moral obligation not to turn suspected terrorists over to 3rd party governments who may use inhumane methods in interrogating them.
    As President, Obama has the moral obligation to ensure that he proactively uses legal and constitutional means to protect the United States and its citizens from terrorist attacks.
    Was Obama so stupid that he didn’t realize that these obligations might be in conflict if he won the election? Or did he cynically manipulate his supporters into believing that no such conflict existed?
    Or do you accept the 3rd option, aka ‘Clown Theory #1’ (there will be others), that Obama chose “to adopt, temporarily, the worldview of you paranoid authoritarian types.”
    The big problem with ‘Clown Theory #1″ is that it brings up the possibility that in order to get elected Obama adopted, temporarily, the worldview of someone who wanted to end the Iraq War, close Guantanamo, and restore lost civil liberties.

  17. Hoping for Nader to save your bacon again, Terry – that’s the very best hope you’ve got? Oh, lordy, you are in for a big disappointment.

    Gay-Wad said: “Many conservatives say we should have just shot the terrorists on the battlefield so we wouldn’t have to deal with you pansy ass pacifist left wing loonies.”

    Hee hee! Yeah, Angryclown’s not a big pacifist, K-Fraud. He’s just way, way smarter than you. Like President Obama’s way, way smarter than his bumbling predecessor.

    As for Shiftee, his forlorn hopes are like music to Angryclown. I guess the prospect of far-left hippies protesting President Obama’s policies – thereby giving him three votes in the center of the spectrum for every one he loses on the left – somehow seems like a good thing to Shiftee. Fat, pompous Rush forced to grudgingly agree with the president… It will be funny if it goes that way. On the other hand, if he dismantles the foundation of your dream police state, that would be a good thing. Whatevs. Either way, good for normal people, bad for Shiftee, funny as all hell for Angryclown.

  18. Shitfee said: “As a consistent opponent of the idea that a sentence of “death” is reserved to One who is above the paygrade of anyone on this planet…”

    Haha, Shiftee’s pro-choice after all!

  19. angryclown said:

    “Angryclown is untroubled by such thoughts”

    but meant:

    “Angryclown is untroubled by thoughts”

    No charge!

  20. “So his two weeks as president have really been disappointing for you, eh K-Rod?” – a-clown

    Tom Dashel and the other tax evaders Obama is surrounding himself with were very disappointing decisions, A-clown.

    Many of his other decisions have been stay the Bush course.

    All would be well in America, a shining city on a hill, if the past few Presidents would have listened to K-Rod.

  21. Like President Obama’s way, way smarter than his bumbling predecessor.
    Appoints Wall Street maven to oversee treasury . . . check.
    Shovels taxpayer $ to Wall Street mavens . . . check.
    Endless War in Iraq . . . check.
    Extraordinary rendition . . . check.
    Guantanamo stays open . . . check.

    I’m not seeing the ‘smarter than his bumbling predecessor, AC’. Or are you counting his decision to allow tax payer dollars to be spent counseling brown people in the 3rd world to get abortions?

  22. K-Rod, you are forgetting all those federal powers lying around in the penumbra of the constitution, just waiting to be discovered.

  23. AC and Peev, what happened to German spys and sabotuers caught out of uniform in WWII?
    Answer they were shot or hanged.
    Why? Because the Geneva Convention allows the Death Penalty for those who violate the Geneva Convention.

  24. jpmn, for years the left pushed the lie that these guys at guantanamo were just hapless pilgrims and madrasa students rounded up en masse in the Afghan War. They wanted them released, pronto, or at least given trials like any gang-banger picked up in the ‘hood.
    Of course back then they knew they had no responsibility for what these guys did once they were released back into the wild.
    Now they realize that if they are released on their watch, and the predictable mayhem ensues, they will be held responsible.
    Life in the real world is tough for these kids. And Obama has zero, zip, nada, experience in foreign policy & warfare to bring to the table.
    Unless you count that summer he spent writing articles for a trade magazine.

  25. At least he has all that executive experience of being editor of his school newspaper to fall back on, right?

    By the by, I noticed these words in a huge font on the front page of a local news paper today: “Obama: I screwed up”. Yeah, it’s been a phenomenal two weeks. *snicker*

  26. Whatevs, Troy. He’s the president. And the next time he faces an election, he’ll have four years experience as president. So maybe you better plan ahead a little bit. And feel free, in the meantime, to suck on it.

  27. He keeps telling people he won that election. Sounds like he’s a little insecure. No worries. Pelosi, Panetta, and Emmanuel will be happy to run things for him while he reads stories to school kids.

  28. he’ll have four years experience as president.

    Just like Carter had.

    I think Carter’s first two weeks were better than this.

  29. Terry blathered: “Pelosi, Panetta, and Emmanuel will be happy to run things for him while he reads stories to school kids.”

    My Pet Goat still in the White House, is it?

  30. Mitch reminisced: “I think Carter’s first two weeks were better than this.”

    Hey, thanks for the flashback to yesteryear, Grandpa. Wasn’t Carter elected like 36 years ago? Any memories of McKinley’s first 14 days?

    Too bad all your elections aren’t like 1980, eh? Unfortunately St. Ronnie is dead and you don’t seem to have another one on the bench.

  31. Ha! When the crap hit the fan Bush stopped the reading lesson. When Obama got in trouble he ran from the White House to the classroom. Bit of a difference there, old sport.
    I bet Obama will start to give press conferences from an undisclosed location. Say, didn’t Bush take questions from a gay male porn star/hooker at some of his press conferences? Do you think Obama will continue that policy of inclusion?

  32. Shh! He went to an ‘undisclosed location’. That doesn’t mean that the location is fixed.
    Anywho, nice try in turning the clock back seven years when you just scolded Mitch for turning it back 29 years. Obama is NOW, man! He exists in the eternal present like some kinda nietzschean ubermensch! Hope, Change, Out.

  33. Do you long for the days when you could pick on President Bush and still seem relevant, angryclown? I think you do.

    We shall see what the future holds, but if the current trend continues we’re in for a lot of “he’s the president” and “suck on it” responses. How popular will that be in 2012?

  34. The place: A thrift shop in the Bowery, The time: Early in 2013.

    Me: Look at all this Obama crap! T-shirts, collector Crown Royal bottles, votive candles . . . Hey! Surly looking clerk! How much for this Obama mug?

    Clerk: Four hundred and twenty-two dollars.

    Me: What? for this piece of junk? You must have a hundred of them here! And besides, it’s chipped.

    Clerk: I said four hundred and twenty two dollars and it’s worth every penny, you goddam wingnut!

    Me: AC? Is that you?

  35. Well, Troy, Angryclown does plan to mock you for the next four-to-eight years because you are losers. And it’s funny to Angryclown how desperately you want the president to fail

    Yes, we can. No, you can’t.

  36. I hope A-clown doesn’t continue to suffer from BDS for the next four-to-eight years.
    That is a lot of anger, hate, and pain.

  37. K-Fraud said: “BDS”

    It’s so cute how you far-right kooks agree on your own little wingnut jargon for dismissing the 75% of Americans who think Bush was a lousy president.

  38. On many issues I am in that % that didn’t agree with Bush.
    I am surprised you didn’t include some snark about “fauxnewz”.

    Face it, assclown, you are against Bush not necessarily the policies. For example, you libs screamed about interrogation methods during the Bush administration.
    Obama favors even “more aggressive interrogation methods”.
    Yet the libs are as quiet as a church mouse.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

  39. Maybe you can find an example of when Angryclown “screamed about interrogation methods during the Bush administration.”

    Either that or you’re just another silly dipshit wingnut. I’m going to go ahead and bet on the latter.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.