Rendition
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. The extraordinary renditions program involved the operation of long-term detention facilities either by the CIA or by a cooperating host government together with the CIA, in which prisoners were held outside of the criminal justice system and otherwise unaccountable under law for extended periods of time. A central feature of this program was rendition to torture, namely that the prisoner was turned over to cooperating foreign governments with the full understanding that those governments would apply techniques that even the Bush Administration considers to be torture. This practice is a felony under current U.S. law, but was made a centerpiece of Bush counterterrorism policy.
- Scott Horton, Harpers
Comments are closed.
Mr. Forest:
The only rendition the administration is backing away from is that of the CIA running its own “long-term” facilities. It can still turn prisoners over to foreign governments and it can still hold prisoners for periods other than long-term (wonder what that means?). I don’t believe the distinction is nearly as significant as you seem to think it is. We will still turn people over to foreign governments that may or may not respect those people’s rights and we will do so after those governments tell us: “Sure, we’ll respect their rights.” If this is much of a change, I doubt it will give the prisoners an increase in hope. Now this is change a guy I can believe in!
Welcome to the war, Mr. Forest. Glad you finally support it now that your guy is wearing the cowboy hat.
The devil, as usual, is in the details. Here’s the executive order in question.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/
First of all, “transitory” detention is still legitimate–see Section 2(g). Nowhere in the document is “short-term” defined.
Second, note that it restores interrogation laws, including renditions, to their pre 9/11, Clinton-era status [Section 3(c)], with the limited safeguards for the detainees. Clinton authorized CIA renditions back in 1995, and this will continue under the Obama executive order. There were torture issues under the old rendition regime as well (scroll to Scheuer section).
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6
As the Human Rights Watch commenter in the LA Times article notes, the Administration rejected calls to incorporate public hearings before courts for those subject to rendition. More startlingly, it appears that Human Rights Watch has reversed its position on rendition in response to the EO.
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/major-flip-flop-by-human-rights-watch.html
Finally, note that the Order opens up for “study” interrogation techniques outside of the Army Field Manual.
The “enhanced” rendition regime may be gone, but extrajudicial rendition and secret detention facilities for “transitory” detentions are still alive and kicking, and no amount of dismissive spin can change that.
Welcome to the war, Mr. Forest. Glad you finally support it now that your guy is wearing the cowboy hat.
You’ll get on my bad side quickly doing that. I didn’t offer comment on the story although it would be easy enough to infer that I find his statement reasonable.
Mr. Forest:
You described the LA Times as having been – what was the term? – “punked” (I’ve always felt that to be an ugly, lowbrow term but it does seem to be gaining fashion “Cred”).
I believe a reasonable interpretation of your post is the following: You feel the LA Times story clearly didn’t understand the reality and that the reality of the situation is – in your view – that the new administration will no longer be practicing the same, bad, old rendition that the old administration was practicing.
I’d say you were obviously “commenting”. And you gotta be kidding to claim you weren’t.
That is a quotation from Scott Horton of Harpers. It is denoted by a blockquote and followed by a citation.
M.Z.,
The corollary to “If you voted for Obama, you are responsible for everything he does” must be “If you post a quote about Obama, you are responsible for everything it says.”
Well, that settles it beyond a reasonable doubt. If Scott Horton — Scott Horton, people! — says that the CIA is doing this or that behind the scenes, then you can bank on Scott Horton being absolutely right. If anyone knows every last secret that the CIA has, Scott Horton does, and he’s officially authorized to write about it in Harper’s. (Who’s Scott Horton, by the way?)
Find somewhere else to comment SB. You aren’t welcome here.
From Wikipedia:
When all is said and done, it’ll amount to nothing more than a sleight of hand misdirection where the status quo is for all practical purposes left unchanged while giving the impression of change to less oppression. Which in itself is an improvement over the previous administration’s overt increase in oppression. But by the end of this administration the bar will have been moved incrementally even further than it was under Bush. And just about the same as it would have been under McCain.
Mr. Forrest: I owe you an apology. I did not notice your entire posting was a quote of someone else. You were clear enough about it – I just simply missed it.
Yes, I assume you agree with the writer but I did you wrong. I couldn’t care less about getting on your bad side but you do have a right to expect me to do it in good faith. Sorry.