[speechlesstx]

The more things change...

Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo and an end to harsh interrogation techniques, the new president has failed to call an end to secret abductions and questioning.

In his first few days in office, Mr Obama was lauded for rejecting policies of the George W Bush era, but it has emerged the CIA still has the authority to carry out renditions in which suspects are picked up and often sent to a third country for questioning.

The practice caused outrage at the EU, after it was revealed the CIA had used secret prisons in Romania and Poland and airports such as Prestwick in Scotland to conduct up to 1,200 rendition flights. The European Parliament called renditions "an illegal instrument used by the United States".

According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed, with the new administration deciding it needs to retain some devices in Mr Bush's anti-terror arsenal amid continued threats to US national security.

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools – you still have to go after the bad guys," an administration official told the Los Angeles Times.

"The legal advisers 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."

Section 2 (g) of the order, appears to allow the US authorities to continue detaining and interrogating terror suspects as long as it does not hold them for long periods. It reads: "The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."

The revelation will cause anger in Europe, where several cases of abuse or mistaken identity were revealed during the Bush administration.

So what do you think of your Hopenchange now?

[Fr_Chuck]

And lets see the hands that believe some of the other things really stopped, like water boarding perhaps, if they merely now declare it is not torture then they are not doing torture. And to be honest the President is not even in the link of some activities that are done. Now does his staff want him to know.

[tomder55]

FrankenFeinstein was being interviewed by Matthews last night. She said there were no renditions because Obama had not made an Executive Order determining their status.?

I kid you not . When the transcript becomes available I'll post it.

She will chair the Panetta hearings so lets see if she can pin him down on this issue.

[artlady]

We have to do some things to protect ourselves.Terrorism is not just all invented hype by the Bush administration.

He has a mess to work with,he has to have some time to make things right and I would rather he err on the side of caution than allow potential terrorists to go free to .

... BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda's Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.

“They're one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. “He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear.”

The development came as Republican legislators criticized the plan to close the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention camp in the absence of any measures for dealing with current detainees. But it also helps explain why the new administration wants to move cautiously, taking time to work out a plan to cope with the complications.

[excon]

Obama to allow anti-terror rendition to continue

Hello steve:

An unfounded rumor.

Oh, it IS true that rendition will still be happening, like the rendition Israel did to Eichmann in South America...

But, EXTRAORDINARY rendition, or as you put it ANTI - TERROR rendition, like ALL Bush policies, are going into the dumper where they belong.

excon

[speechlesstx]

An unfounded rumor? We'll see. Obviosuly, the Obama administration is keeping its options open on all manner of things. “Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions,” sniffed press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Imagine Dana Perino saying that. Hopenchange, indeed.

[tomder55]

Leaving the rendition system that has been in place for OVER a decade is sensible given the limited options he is leaving himself to work with .

[excon]

An unfounded rumor? We'll see.

Hello again, Steve:

We'll see indeed.

Look, I don't know what this guy is going to do. He has YET to be proven. But, citing anonymous "current and former U.S. intelligence officials", in the Times article doesn't tell ME anything.

Especially, when upon further inspection, it becomes clear that there are numerous factions with a very compelling interest in claiming that the Obama administration is preserving and continuing the most extreme Bush "counter-terrorism" policies, regardless of whether it's true. Some of these groups would be:

(1) Bush followers eager to claim that their leader has been vindicated because Obama is replicating his policies;

(2) Members of the intelligence community who do not want any new limits imposed on their activities and,

(3) Establishment media figures, eager to depict Obama as supportive of, rather than hostile to, prevailing policies, because they spent the last eight years supporting and enabling those policies, and do not want Obama's election to be perceived as a repudiation of those behaviors.

excon

[excon]

Hello again, supporters of rendition,

Let me ask you this.

Suppose, for the sake of this discussion, that during the previous administration, (a) Afghanistan learned exactly where the dufus was located, (b) there was ample evidence that he illegally detained and tortured its citizens and was continuing those policies with the intention of doing so indefinitely, and (c) the U.S. was either unwilling or unable to apprehend the dufus in order to extradite him for trial.

Why can't Afghanistan render Bush? If we're going to kidnap people and take them away, why do you think other countries shouldn't do the same thing? Why are the rules different for us?

excon

[tomder55]

What's the difference between capturing Eichmann by rendition and capturing jihadist terrorists by rendition ?

[excon]

what's the difference between capturing Eichmann by rendition and capturing jihadist terrorists by rendition ?

Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh, Eichmann was tried openly on TELEVISION, convicted in a court of law, and sentenced to death... His trial was fair. He wasn't tortured.

Jihadists, or those who are ACCUSED of jihadism, HAVEN'T been tried, WON'T be tried, and will be kept FOREVER.. Oh, and they'll be tortured..

THAT'S the difference.

excon

[speechlesstx]

The article I excerpted says "Obviously you need to preserve some tools – you still have to go after the bad guys," an administration official told the Los Angeles Times." That is how it's supposed to be reported isn't it, as the new press secretary learned in his first press conference?

I think it's interesting that the standards of holding a president accountable have suddenly been lowered so dramatically in just a couple of weeks.

[speechlesstx]

Why are the rules different for us?

That's the subject of another discussion. The purpose of this post was to discuss why the rules are different for Obama.

[tomder55]

Obama is still retaining the option of rendition ;presumably to send captured jihadist scum to other nations since he is closing down GITMO and "black sites " . He's going to do this knowing the jihadists will not get due process and will be tortured ? Imagine that !

[excon]

presumably to send captured jihadist scum to other nations since he is closing down GITMO

Hello again, tom:

You point out the EXACT reason WHY Gitmo had to be closed...

You continue to point out that these are jihadist scum... THAT is the problem. Without a trial, neither of us have ANY idea whether these are jihadist scum or NOT. We only have somebody's WORD for it.

YOU seem to take their word, even though you don't know who THEY are.

I, on the other hand, don't believe them, because I have NO idea who they are. But, it doesn't really matter WHO arrested them. What matters is WHO convicts them. But, we ain't going to DO that part...

So, I WOULD believe them |(whoever they are) if we tried the accused and they were found guilty... But, I'm not a buyer into the notion that "accused" is sufficient...

So, if they were rendered to Gitmo, tried and convicted, then Gitmo wouldn't have to be closed...

But, the dufus didn't do that, and his minions like you were happy about it. I guess, what suprises me so, is how quickly you guys FORGET the ideals this nation was founded on.

From MY part, I'm reminded just how fragile our freedom is, when it can be wisked away at any minute.

excon

[tomder55]

But, the dufus didn't do that, and his minions like you were happy about it. I

Wrong again . As I point out every time you bring this up... I am in favor and always have been in favor of tribunals (the historic way to deal with pirates and their reincarnation terrrorists ) . It was the "human rights "types that stalled due "due process"... not President Bush .