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 