Americans voted for Change

[Naked Gents Rut]

Obama

President Obama's executive order closing CIA "black sites" contains a little-noticed exception that allows the spy agency to continue to operate temporary detention facilities abroad.

The provision illustrates that the president's order to shutter foreign-based prisons, known as black sites, is not airtight and that the Central Intelligence Agency still has options if it wants to hold terrorist suspects for several days at a time.

Current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition that they aren't identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, said such temporary facilities around the world will remain open, giving the administration the opportunity to seize and hold assumed terrorists.

The detentions would be temporary. Suspects either would be brought later to the United States for trial or sent to other countries where they are wanted and can face trial.

The exception is evidence that the new administration, while announcing an end to many elements of the Bush "war on terror," is leaving itself wiggle room to continue some of its predecessor's practices regarding terrorist suspects.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/28/obama-order-allows-short-term-cia-sites/

We're totally still in the torture game, baby!

[Elok]

Relevant bit bolded because reading is HARD.

Obama's orders did not ban the controversial CIA practice of "extraordinary rendition," in which prisoners are transferred by the CIA from one country to another.

Those transfers can continue, according to the orders, as long as prisoners are not taken to other nations "to face torture" or as part of a CIA effort to circumvent international laws on detainee treatment.

"There are some renditions that are, in fact, justifiable, defensible," said the senior Obama administration official. "There's not going to be rendition to any country that engages in torture."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-obama-guantanamo23-2009jan23,0,6159328,full.story

Sometimes I really wonder why I waste my time here. It can't be for the elevated level of discourse.

We were just thinking the same thing. Or at least, I was. If he specifically rules out rendition to countries that ban torture, then this isn't much support for your "torture is still go" take on the issue. I read this statement to mean "we may give prisoners to other countries for whatever reason [e.g. so they can face trial in their home countries or places where they are suspects], but we won't be doing the nudge-nudge wink-wink 'don't treat him too kindly now' thing anymore." The bit from the Washington Times (and BTW, you might try excerpts from a paper NOT owned by a cult next time) does its best to sound bad but can't avoid emphasizing that these facilities are temporary. I'm guessing that the actual "loophole" is even smaller than they make it sound.

Re: abortion, I'm pretty vehemently pro-life and I find the Holocaust comparison problematic. Abortion is not intended as a tool of genocide, unless you consider those with Down's syndrome and other defects ethnic groups, and AFAIK is done without malice.

[Naked Gents Rut]

If he specifically rules out rendition to countries that ban torture

How gullible are you people? Of course he'll say he won't ship terrorists to countries that torture. I'm sure Clinton said the same thing when he was in office. That didn't stop Slick Willy from sending terrorists to Egypt and Syria, however, and it won't stop Obama. He left himself those loopholes for a reason.

[Elok]

So, because the administration issues a release specifically denying they will do something, we should "read between the lines" and take the release as them saying they'll do it anyway? Is this related to that time Obama let us know he was a Muslim by repeatedly and strenuously insisting that he was a member of the United Church of Christ?

We get it, you're cynical about Obama and liberals in general, but what you're citing is evidence of nothing. If you look at it a certain way it's "obvious" that Obama will continue to torture, but only in the same sense that, if you look at the horizon a certain way, it's "obvious" that the Earth is flat. You see what you want to see. OMG Obama is willing to hold suspects overseas a couple of days until [pick one: paperwork clears, next flight becomes available, escort can be arranged]! He's obviously going to put fishhooks in their nuts!

[Naked Gents Rut]

We get it, you're cynical

Fixed. You'll get this way too once you learn a thing or two.

[Elok]

Oh, I am cynical. Just not stupid-cynical. Obama won't be perfect, but he has no real incentive to torture AFAIK, he'd have very little hope of keeping it secret if he did, and the political fallout would be fatal to his hard-fought career, which he is quite fond of. Unless he's like those gay Republicans (maybe he's a sexual sadist who gets aroused by clandestine torture?), he's very unlikely to try it.

[Naked Gents Rut]

but he has no real incentive to torture

He has exactly the same incentives to use extraordinary rendition and "torture" as every other President. Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41 and possibly Reagan all engaged in extraordinary rendition. Why would you expect Obama to act any differently, especially when he purposefully left the possibility open?

[Kuciwalker]

That's an understatement, Arrian; using Nazi Germany as a comparision with aborition is just plain dumb.

Not at all.

[Arrian]

That's an understatement, Arrian; using Nazi Germany as a comparision with aborition is just plain dumb.

If you believe that a zygote is a human being (and should thus be accorded the rights/privileges of a human being), then no, it's not dumb. The dumb part is believing that a clumb of cells the size of a walnut (fer instance) should be considered a human being - and I'd wager many anti-abortion folks are not that extreme. But it gets tricky. At some point during the development of the fetus, surely it acquires rights. There are various possible cutoffs one could use. People get particularly upset about the "partial birth abortion" proceedure, and I don't think it's difficult to see why.

-Arrian

[Naked Gents Rut]

Obama

Reporting from Washington -- The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story

[Darius871]

Did he ever make any definitive statements on rendition before the election?

[Bosh]

Obama says that we will do A.
Anonymous sources say that we will do B.
Obama gets praised for planning to do B.

Wha?

[Ramo]

It's worth pointing out that the executive order dictates compliance with the Convention Against Torture, which bans extradition to a country where there's a reasonable chance that the suspect is likely to be tortured. The order also creates a commission to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. I suppose it's possible that he secretly doesn't want the CIA to pay attention to this EO, but I'll wait for more solid confirmation than random anonymous former intel guys.

[Darius871]

It's worth pointing out that the executive order dictates compliance with the Convention Against Torture, which bans extradition to a country where there's a reasonable chance that the suspect is likely to be tortured. The order also creates a commission to ensure that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. I suppose it's possible that he secretly doesn't want the CIA to pay attention to this EO, but I'll wait for more solid confirmation than random anonymous former intel guys.

Wise choice to wait:

Panetta: Obama won't OK 'extraordinary rendition'
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press
13 mins ago

WASHINGTON – CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta assured senators Thursday that the Obama administration will not send prisoners to countries for torture or other treatment that violates U.S. values as he contended had occurred during the Bush presidency.

Panetta, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee, later acknowledged that he does not know specifically what happened in the secret program allowing so-called "extraordinary rendition." CIA Director Michael Hayden has said that the Bush administration moved secret prisoners between countries for interrogation and incarceration, separate from the judicial system, fewer than 100 times.

Panetta said that President Barack Obama forbids what Panetta called "that kind of extraordinary rendition — when we send someone for the purpose of torture or actions by another country that violate our human values."

"What happened I can't tell you specifically," he said later, "but clearly steps were taken that prompted this president to say those things ought not to happen again."

Rendition has been used by U.S. presidents for several decades; Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said the Clinton administration used it 80 times. However, Panetta said the difference is whether the prisoner is transferred to another government for prosecution in its judicial system or for secret interrogations that may lead to torture.

Panetta said renditions that send individuals to other countries to face prosecution are appropriate.

"Having said that, if we capture a high-value prisoner, I believe we have the right to hold that individual temporarily, to debrief that individual and to make sure that individual is properly incarcerated so we can maintain control over that individual," he said.

While the Obama administration is turning its back on some Bush administration practices, Panetta said there is no intention to hold CIA officers responsible for the policies they were told to carry out. CIA interrogators who used waterboarding or other harsh techniques against prisoners with the permission of the White House should not be prosecuted, he said.

The Bush White House approved CIA waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning, for three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. The CIA banned the practice internally in 2006. Obama has prohibited harsh interrogation techniques going forward.

But Panetta said if interrogators went beyond the methods they were told were legal, they should be investigated.

"We can protect this country, we can get the information we need, we can provide for the security of the American people and we can abide by the law. I'm absolutely convinced that we can do that," he said.

Panetta said he would come to the job with a list of questions he wants the CIA to be able to answer, including the location of Osama bin Laden and when and where al-Qaida will next try to attack the U.S. He also said he wants to increase intelligence gathering and analyses on potential problems with Russia, China, Africa and Latin America, as well as the effects of the unfolding economic crisis.

"Our first responsibility is to prevent surprise," he said.

The former White House chief of staff under President Clinton and ex-congressman from California has extensive experience in government but little in intelligence gathering or analysis. He told the committee that he has asked former CIA chiefs - notably former President George H.W. Bush - how to compensate for that shortcoming.

"They all told me to listen carefully to the professionals at the agency but also to stay closely engaged with Congress," Panetta said. "I am a creature of Congress."

Panetta acknowledged that he has little professional intelligence experience. But, he added: "I know Washington. I know how it works. I think I also know why it fails to work."

For intelligence expertise, he said, he would retain the top four officials now at the CIA, including Deputy Director Steven Kappes. He promised not to meddle in day-to-day intelligence operations.

"I anticipate focusing primarily on ensuring policy and procedure is handled correctly, rather than intervening personally in the details of operational planning or the production of individual pieces of analysis," he said. "But let me assure you, the decisions at the CIA will be mine."

He promised to root out any "yes men," saying: "I would encourage dissent. I always have."

Panetta also told the committee that he would brief the entire House and Senate intelligence committees as much as possible, rather than just its top members. He said the Bush administration abused that practice.

"Too often critical issues were kept from this committee," he said.

One of those issues, according to the senators, was the information that the CIA last October recalled its top spy in Algeria because he allegedly raped two women. The committee only learned of the action from news reports this week.

Panetta said Congress should have been informed last fall, and he said the CIA officer should not only have been called back to Washington but fired immediately.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/..._panetta/print

[TheNavySeal]

So you guys are saying torture is bad. So what do you purpose to get info out of the terrorist (or person under suspicion)? What are you gonna do give them a hotdog and hope they give you what you want? If you can't get the info you need out of them an attack like 9/11 could happen again even though it could have been prevented. Besides the "Torture" methods used are not harmful to the person being tortured they only put fear into them. So you'd rather feed a criminal like a king and get no information out of him and possibly putting others at risk, rather then using a not harmful system that effectively gets the information from the suspect? Even if the method used was dangerous to this suspect what does it matter? This person under suspect is normally plotting an attack that could kill innocent people! Do you think they have any morals and care about the people they are plotting against?

Not sure if I put my thoughts down perfectly but that will have to do.

Chinese Water torture isn't a harmful torture I like it.