Promoting this from this post’s comments:
Ivan says I am wrong about Rendition and writes:
Datechguy,
Read the order:
” “1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.”
It’s pretty clear. And this is pretty much a 180 from the bush administration when we extradited prisoners to places like Egypt and Jordan to be tortured. Even national review and glenn reynolds has had to backtrack a bit on this:
First: Looking at both NRO and Instapundit, NRO mentions the other article while Instapundit says “possibly” not much of a retraction if any.
Second: Reading what you have it would seem to me that the law mandates things be examined but the people doing the stuff decide what weight to give stuff. Plenty of room for interpretation.
Third: This is an administration made of of ex Bill “depends on what the meaning of the word is is” Clinton people. I’m sure they will interpret words by their clear meaning.
Fourth: You have an administration that in only 3 weeks has appointed a Treasury secretary that doesn’t pay its taxes. Whose answer to another potential cabinet officer with similar issues is “Nobody’s Perfect” and who deliberately disabled fraud prevention measures on contributions. Yeah they’re going to respect the law as written.
Fifth: You already have human rights groups twisting into pretzels to defend him and a protective media. Who is going to pursue this stuff if it happens? Why would this administration have any fear of it?
Sixth: Without such pressure how long will it take such cases even if brought to make it through the courts?
Your interpretation isn’t quite the move the mountain into the sea level but in my opinion it isn’t far off.
Hey he could prove me wrong, we’ll see.
Update: Dissenting Justice has my back:
After reviewing much of the pro-rendition liberal pushback, I have collected my thoughts and written a response. Here’s a summary: the liberal defense is strained, dishonest, surprisingly nuanced, and contrary to true progressive politics because it elevates “party” over principle.
Over to you Ivan.
Update: Talk left agrees with Ivan.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 
Datechguy, Hilzoy only lightly touched upon Obama’s executive order. If you read it, it’s an unequivocal repudiation of Bush’s policies and reverses Bush’s previous executive order that allowed him to find strained cracks in the Geneva convention and allow not-so-crafty lawyers to create laughable legal documents that ‘authorizes’ torture, there’s no wiggle room here. I’m not even going to dignify the “CLINTON!” canard and other non-sequitors you’ve thrown in, because the right pretty much ran that talking point into the ground a decade ago. As for NRO and Glenn Reynolds, they’re probably 2 of the more intellectually dishonest sources on the web, so when they even slightly put the brakes on something they thought was true, then something is up:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/
A good summary of the order is here:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=251&sid=1582085
“Executive order revokes Executive Order 13440 that interpreted Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines. The order also prohibits reliance on any department of justice or other legal advice concerning interrogation that was issued between September 11, 2001, and January 20, 2009.
The order requires all departments and agencies to provide the (International Committee of the Red Cross) access to detainees in a manner consistent with department of defense regulations and practice. It also orders the CIA to close all existing detention facilities and prohibits it from operating detention facilities in the future.
Finally, the order creates a special task force with two missions. The task force will conduct a review of the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines to determine whether different or additional guidance is necessary for the CIA. It will also look at rendition and other policies for transferring individuals to third countries to be sure that our policies and practices comply with all obligations and are sufficient to ensure that individuals do not face torture and cruel treatment if transferred. This task force will be led by the attorney general with the secretary of defense and the director of national intelligence as co-vice chairs.”
Also, a followup from Hilzoy that clears up what rendition/extraordinary rendition/torture and how they’re related/not related here:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/02/ask-dr-rendition.html
The Clinton canard? That is a very funny statement. Particularly when you are questioning the intellectually honesty of NRO and Prof Reynolds.
The Geneva argument, considering that under the Geneva conventions the people are not legal combatants nor are they signatories to said convention are interesting. It makes your rendition argument based on legal interpretation even more interesting.
My argument is that even if you are exactly right about the wording, (and I maintain you are not) it isn’t going to matter for the reasons I gave. I’ll be content to agree to disagree with you and let the readers make up their minds based on it. Time will tell which one of us is right.
I trust that if you believe that these are much stricter rules that if this administration violates them you will be the first to complain.
Datechguy,
Here’s Obama’s new CIA director going into more depth about the policy. He’s unequivocal. Also, go back to the Hilzoy post and read the differences between ‘rendition’, ‘extraordinary rendition’, and ‘torture’. These are 3 different things, but they all get lumped into the same argument by the right.
“MSNBC.com
CIA nominee says no ‘extraordinary rendition’
Panetta wants CIA to find bin Laden; says don’t prosecute waterboarders
The Associated Press
updated 4:26 p.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 5, 2009
WASHINGTON – The Obama administration will not conduct the kind of “extraordinary rendition” that the Bush administration allowed, CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta assured senators on Thursday.
Panetta told the Senate Intelligence Committee 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.”
CIA Director Michael Hayden has said that the Bush administration moved secret prisoners between countries for interrogations and imprisonment, separate from the judicial system, fewer than 100 times.
Rendition has been used by U.S. presidents for several decades, and 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 cross the line into torture.
“I think renditions where we return individuals to another country where they prosecute them under their laws, I think that is an appropriate use of rendition, Panetta said.
“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 policy 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.
“Those individuals ought not to be prosecuted or investigated if they acted pursuant to the law as presented by the attorney general,” Panetta 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.
Panetta said he would come to the job with a list a 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 United States.
“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 much 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 he has little professional intelligence experience. But, he said: “I know Washington. I know how it works. I think I also know why it fails to work.”
For intelligence expertise, however, he is retaining 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.”
In choosing Panetta, Obama passed over current and former CIA officials with impressive credentials. The other candidates had either worked in intelligence during the Bush administration’s development of policies on interrogation and torture or earlier, during the months leading up to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Panetta is not expected to face major opposition in the Senate. If confirmed, he would assume control of the CIA just weeks after Obama made dramatic changes in the agency’s interrogation and detention program, directing that secret prisons be closed and interrogations held to methods approved by the military.
Panetta is a strong supporter of Obama’s rules.
“We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground,” he wrote last year.
Panetta promised 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.
“
Oh just a FYI links should work in comments. If they don’t for you post the actual link since it allows me to include them.
As I’m mentioned I’ve already said my final word on the post but I will certainly approve any other comment you wish to make on the subject.