Rendition

[jjimm]

I’m at work so haven’t got time, but can someone dredge up an old Extraordinary Rendition thread so we can gloat at the usual suspects defending the admin on this?

[Scoundrel_Swanswater]

I am still hoping that Bush will get taken to task and has to stand trial for the war-crimes and torture that has taken place under his rule.
I am sure it will never happen, but a guy can hope.
Has Bush already pushed the law through that no member of the military can be held responsible for war-crimes?

I really, really, really do not understand how anybody can still defend that piece of shit president of yours.
This guy has done more harm to the world in his few years of reign then all tyrants and despotes together since Adolf Hitler.
(Well, maybe even more, since Hitler at least united the world in a united front).

[Hamadryad]

@Squink

Having thus lost the debate, the president should now abandon Iraq, and let them keep their slaves.

<nitpick> Godwin’s Law only states that as an internet exchange goes on, the chance of someone mentioning nazis or Hitler approaches 1:1. Not “If you mention Hitler or Nazis, you lose.” </nitpick>

[elucidator]

You’re forgetting that GeeDub wrote a signing statement with regard to Godwins Law.

[Evil_Captor]

I heard about it, but all I expected to hear about the President’s current admitted outrage on the Dope from his defenders is the sound of crickets chirping. What leg do they have to stand on here? None. Of course, this has never stopped them before, but just as we in the middle are suffering from outrage fatique, so folks on the right are probably suffering from Bulwark Fatigue. “To the barricades one more time, faithful patriots! Our fearless leader has admitted to another one!” Gotta be tiresome.

[Der_Trihs]

@jjimm

I’m at work so haven’t got time, but can someone dredge up an old Extraordinary Rendition thread so we can gloat at the usual suspects defending the admin on this?

Here’s one I started on the secret prisons.

[Kimstu]

Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever seen the SDMB “usual suspects” denying the existence of extraordinary rendition or overseas torture facilities, although some Bush supporters around here have sometimes argued in favor of the necessity of torture.

Remember, the rendition process has been in use since the Clinton administration, although the current administration appears to employ it much more aggressively and frequently:

The Clinton administration pioneered the use of extraordinary rendition after the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. But it also pressed allied intelligence services to respect lawful boundaries in interrogations.

After years of fruitless talks in Egypt, President Bill Clinton cut off funding and cooperation with the directorate of Egypt’s general intelligence service, whose torture of suspects has been a perennial theme in State Department human rights reports.

“You can be sure,” one Bush administration official said, “that we are not spending a lot of time on that now.”

[Ethilrist]

@Lissa

Show of hands, people:

How many of you really believed there were no interrogation centers?

The silence likely stems from the dearth of dropping jaws.

I have believed that the government, at some levels, has been operating completely outside the law since… well, since we first had laws. There have been illegal search & seizure, illegal detaining of people both innocent & guilty, executions, imprisonments, wiretapping, you name it, it’s been done, since the days of George Washington. Well, not the wiretapping part, because, heh, no phones, but you get the idea.

Maybe I grew up watching too many spy movies and TV shows, but there it is. So, the surprise to me in cases like this is not that it has happened, but that (a) they’re admitting it and (b) other people are shocked… shocked, I say, to find out that illegal activities have occurred…

[gonzomax]

It against humanity. You do not treat people like that. The presumption of innocence is completely disgarded. Many Abu grebe prisoners have been released. There are innocents in there…Torture them all and let god sort them out.
Then it doesn’t work. Tortured people will say anything to make the pain stop. is it safe?
Have they ever gotten any thing useful. Perhaps but then they have to filter through the crap they get. Many interrogators say it does not work.They reprsent us in the world. Not good.

[Giles]

@Ethilrist

So, the surprise to me in cases like this is not that it has happened, but that (a) they’re admitting it and (b) other people are shocked… shocked, I say, to find out that illegal activities have occurred…

No, the surprise to me is that the administration, at the highest levels, defends it, before the Supreme Court, and in proposed legislation for Congress.

It used to be “plausible denial”. But now, the denial isn’t plausible, and it’s followed up by official statements that it is being done, and it’s either legal, or going to be made legal by the right kind of legislation.

[ouryL]

I think I heard an ex-Reagan appointee say in horror, “what if they are acquitted?” “Classified information was divulged during the trial!”

[jjimm]

@Der Trihs

Here’s one I started on the secret prisons.

Hmm, a bit disappointing. Nobody saying they don’t exist, just that they’re fine with the secret illegal detention of untried suspects etc. I apologise for my insinuation.

[John_Mace]

Refresh my memory on this one: Did Bush ever deny that the secret prisons existed, or did he just say “no comment”? I mean, everyone knew we had Khalid Sheik Mohammed in custody, right? And we’ve had the list of Gitmo detainees for quite some time now, and he ain’t on it. 2+2=4, and all that.

[E-Sabbath]

I really, really, really hope the Dems take Congress this year. So Bush can be impeached. This kind of shit is wrong. Deeply and horribly wrong. And if we don’t make an example of this kind of thing, nail the hide to the wall, it will just get worse.

Damn it.

[Squink]

@John Mace

Refresh my memory on this one: Did Bush ever deny that the secret prisons existed, or did he just say “no comment”?

Neither, when asked about them, he took the opportunity to answer a different question :

Q Mr. President, many in Europe are worrying that with the fight against terrorism the commitment of the United States to human rights is not as big as it used to be – that is not only to do with Guantanamo, but also with the secret prisons where the CIA holds terror suspects. My question is, what will happen to these people who are held in these secret prisons by the CIA? Will they ever see a judge? Or is your thinking that with some terror suspects, the rule of law should not apply or does not have to have applied.

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, I appreciate that question, and I understand we – those of us who espouse freedom have an obligation, and those who espouse human rights have an obligation to live that to those – live up to those words. And I believe we are, in Guantanamo. I mean, after all, there’s 24 hour inspections by the International Red Cross. You’re welcome to go down yourself – maybe you have – and taking a look at the conditions. I urge members of our press corps to go down to Guantanamo and see how they’re treated and to see – and to see – and to look at the facts…

VP Cheney took the no comment route:

Q Does the United States maintain secret prisons around the world?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters.

Q Secret prisons?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters.

Q Does the International Red Cross have access to everyone in U.S. custody, as we are obliged?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Terry, with all due respect, I won’t discuss intelligence matters. I shouldn’t.

Q I’d like to put this personally if I can. You’re a grandfather, I’m a father, when we look at those girls, and we think that the country we’re about to pass on to them is a country where the Vice President can’t say whether or not we have secret prisons around the world, whether water boarding and mock executions is consistent with our values, and a country where the government is surveiling Americans without the warrant of a court, is that the country you want to pass on to them?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I want to pass on to them a country that is free, that is not plagued by terrorist attacks, doesn’t see a repeat of the terrible events of 9/11 when we lost 3,000 of our people that morning to a handful of terrorists who have no justification at all for what they do.

I can guarantee you that what we do as a government, as an administration is to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States, that we do, in fact, take extraordinary steps to make certain we maintain our constitutional obligations and responsibilities, which include both defending the country, as well as defending individual liberties and protecting the rights of all Americans. You have to –

[casdave]

I’ve got little doubt that some information obtained was used to capture others who were planning operations and it may well have prevented some very serious incidents, but I wonder that the price that they US has paid upon both its own honour and also upon its own morals, its almost a form of nation self mutilation.

How do you evaluate how far you can go, what price is too little or too great when deciding wether or not to torture, abduct, kill and abuse ?

I’m sure that the victims or terrorist incidents might see things differantly, but it still seems so sad.

Its very sad that the US has slid so low, maybe it never was so high.

The credibility of the US has been weakened dramatically, and when the right wing neocons condemn organisations such as Amnesty International, you just know that things are seriously amiss in the US.

I remember the feeling when British ill treatment of arrested Irish terrorists took place it was reported by Amnesty, we Brits roundly condemned Amnesty for their bias, but it turned out to our shame that those reports were true.

I had hoped that maybe the US was at least working to improve itself, was becoming a better example than we were, but it seems not.

Perhaps we do need to look at the European Declaration on Human Rights, its may not be perfect but rulings that have emanated from courts on matters related have tended to reinforce the right of the individual over that of the state and the body politic.

[Lissa]

@Scoundrel Swanswater

I
This guy has done more harm to the world in his few years of reign then all tyrants and despotes together since Adolf Hitler.

I’m no Bush fan, but this is a teeeny bit of an exaggeration.

Millions died under Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin. Numbers-wise, Bush still has a long way to go before he’s in those leagues.

[Zoe]

So. Is torturing people enough to get Bush impeached or do we have to wait until he does something nasty?

[elucidator]

Forget impeachment. We will be doing very well, indeed, if we can gain enough clout to keep the morons in check. And that’ll have to do, for now. Bush has a granite bedrock of around 33% of the people who will believe no wrong, period. However apalling, it is so, and we have to live with these people even after we loosen their grip on power.

In the insanity following 9/11, we inflated a mediocrity into a Leader of Men. The good news is we no longer believe that, the bad news is he still does.

[Lissa]

@Zoe

So. Is torturing people enough to get Bush impeached or do we have to wait until he does something nasty?

No, you silly girl! We have to wait until he does something immoral, like lying about extra-marital sex.

Oh, won’t some civic-minded individual sabotage Bush’s pants so that he moons America during the next State of the Union and causes Concerned Parents everywhere to call for a “ban on Bush” because of the irreperable harm to their children caused by the the sight of the executive willy?