Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool

[Rathji]

Thank God he kept this around.

What would Jack Bauer do without the ability to rip people's faces off at a moments notice?

We cannot let the terrorists win!

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Can I do the 'told you so' shtick right now? Or should I wait a couple months?

Told us what exactly?

I am unsure of the point you are trying to make.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Told us what exactly?

I am unsure of the point you are trying to make.

That the 'change' part of Obama's campaign isn't going to happen with the flick of a switch? That its impossible to go to Washington and just reverse all the policies that were made in the past 8, or 16 year?

[Daradon]

Oh, well that is true, though I don't think many posters were suggesting that. The serious posters anyway.

He did sign the orders to close GB so that's a start.

As I've mentioned before, I'm not sure how successful he'll be able to be. The system is broke, it's going to take more than a president to fix it.

That said, if he is even half as good as he's come across in the campaign and transition period, and actually believes the things he's said, he'll be a very welcome change.

[Azure]

Thing is, I believe he means every word he said, and he WANTS to change things around, and fix everything.

Doesn't mean he'll be able too.

People need to start realizing that half the battle is in who they elect to Congress. You can't elect a President that wants to change things, but put the same idiots that screwed up the system in the first place back into Congress year after year.

[Daradon]

I think he does too. But like we've both said, it's going to take more than just that, and just him.

[Rathji]

People will crucify whoever is in charge no matter what the circumstances.

[Ozy_Flame]

You have to wonder how effective renditions actually are if Obama supports it. For a guy trying to shed America's Republican image and supporting this policy, I wonder if it's actually more effective than we actually know.

Perhaps on the surface it seems like a horrible idea, but I wonder how many terrorist acts may have been prevented because of renditions.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

You have to wonder how effective renditions actually are if Obama supports it. For a guy trying to shed America's Republican image and supporting this policy, I wonder if it's actually more effective than we actually know.

Perhaps on the surface it seems like a horrible idea, but I wonder how many terrorist acts may have been prevented because of renditions.

So you think Bush just supposed the idea because he got 'off' by supporting the torture of bad guys?

Come on. Obviously it DOES work....or neither Obama, NOR Bush would have supported it.

I should also say that torture, under certain circumstances might work too. Doesn't mean its 'right'....or should be the official policy of the United States.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you think Bush just supposed the idea because he got 'off' by supporting the torture of bad guys?

Holy overreaction Batman!

I think he just meant that because Bush has shown he cares less about civil liberties by expanding secret prisons and messing with the constitution with things like the Patriot Act and wire tapping, not to mention what many have called an illegal war.

And many of those have been Obama's talking points.

I would like to think Obama is against it and will tighten up the program even though he hasn't eliminated it completely.

To be fair it was started under Clinton's watch, though Reagan used something similar too.

Of course it did seem to snowball under the Bush years.

[flylock shox]

Obama can't afford to make too many mistakes like this. His entire strength as a leader in the eyes of the world (and, to a slightly lesser extent, his own people) stems from his ability to inspire and the message of moral uprightness he campaigned upon. If he loses that, no one will buy the hype anymore, and his ability to make real positive change in the world will be greatly reduced.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Holy overreaction Batman!

I think he just meant that because Bush has shown he cares less about civil liberties by expanding secret prisons and messing with the constitution with things like the Patriot Act and wire tapping, not to mention what many have called an illegal war.

And many of those have been Obama's talking points.

I would like to think Obama is against it and will tighten up the program even though he hasn't eliminated it completely.

To be fair it was started under Clinton's watch, though Reagan used something similar too.

Of course it did seem to snowball under the Bush years.

Well, neither Reagan nor Clinton expanded the WoT like Bush did, so obviously one would expect the power of the government to increase as well.

Not that I agree with what Bush did.

I think there are a lot of things we wouldn't morally agree with that the government uses to be successful against terrorist groups. Its a fine line to thread, and I think Obama has realized that too.

[LChoy]

Consulting CP before google, but does Rendition work the other way as well, in that snatch teams kidnap persons of interest in foreign territories, and bring back to the States for Justice/questioning? Especially in non-extradition countries?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Consulting CP before google, but does Rendition work the other way as well, in that snatch teams kidnap persons of interest in foreign territories, and bring back to the States for Justice/questioning? Especially in non-extradition countries?

Foreign territories ARE often where they are captured.

And mostly (always probably) they are kept off U.S. soil. Can't 'interrogate' them the way they do if they were on US soil. A little loophole to say, 'we don't torture'.

Unless I'm missing the meaning of your post.

[LChoy]

I guess I'm saying I'm for Rendition if it doesn't involve torture, and that there is some sort of due process.
Capturing a bad guy and bringing him back to the States for Justice or to face say the War crimes Tribunal at the Hague I support. To capture someone and send them to another country to be tortured is something I'm not

[Daradon]

There is NO due process in rendition. That's the worst part. The level of interrogation or torture is debated, though even some of the stories that have come out are far to much in my mind.

It's basically sanctioned kidnapping of other countries citizens. Many international laws have been broken, but it's hard to 'stand up' to the States. I mean it even happened to one of our citizens, and I don't believe anything was ever proved or any apology was ever given.

[Azure]

Thing is, if the US captures a known terrorist in Saudi Arabia for instance, what exactly with the Crown Prince do about it?

Whine and complain that the US was operating on his soil, or shutup because he knows damn well that known terrorists were operating within the confines of his country, and he did nothing about it?

I'm sure the US blackmails a lot of countries that way to get them to shutup. IF they find out about any of this rendition stuff.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thing is, if the US captures a known terrorist in Saudi Arabia for instance, what exactly with the Crown Prince do about it?

Funnel more money to bin Laden.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Funnel more money to bin Laden.

Granted, you are right....but my point still stands.

I'm positive the US blackmails countries when those countries find out about US operations on their soil.

[LChoy]

Blackmail is a little strong. I think it's more that foreign countries wouldn't say anything publically as it would admit to them harbouring terrorists, or worse, that they are incapable capturing them on their own.

Also, US isn't the only country that does rendition. The Brits and the Germans have sent Spec Ops into the Balkans to capture war criminals to bring to the tribunal years after Balkan conflict. The Israeli's did the same thing to find Nazi War criminals in places like Buenos Aires