Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Lets CIA Keep Controversial Renditions Tool
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 discredited programs, President Barack Obama left an equally controversial counterterrorism tool intact.
Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism-aside from Predator missile strikes-for taking suspected terrorists off the street.
The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.
The European Parliament condemned renditions as an "illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a subsidiary of Boeing Corp., which is accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.
But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.
The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the U.S. is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.
"Obviously you need to preserve some tools, you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing legal reasoning behind the decision. "The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."
One provision in one of Obama's orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."
Obama's decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human-rights groups. Leaders of such organizations said that reflects a sense, even among advocates, that the United States and other nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured."
In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to re-examine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture" or otherwise circumvent human-rights laws and treaties.
- Posted in
74 Comments so far
Show AllThis must be one of those "known unknowns" that Rummy was rambling on about...
Seems that the CIA will continue to shuffle "enemy combatants" around their gulag archipelago,
so long as they don't leave the chattel in any one place for too long... The perfect legal limbo land...
Now that there has been great fanfare that Obama has ended US torture by closing gitmo,
the spooks can shirk back into the shadows to continue working the dark side of democracy...
Surprise, surprise.
As others have been noting - if their eyes are open - nothing has changed. We still ain't got rule of law.
But I could be wrong !
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured."
So much for the protections of Human Rights Watch. When shills like Tom Malinowski work for formally pro human rights organizations, I have to believe that the spooks have infiltrated all levels of peace groups.
Everyday, in every way, Mr. Obama shows himself to be a shill of the ruling elite. Mr. Obama is a constitutional law professor. He knows or should know that renditions are a war crime because there is no "due process" attached to renditions. No one kidnapped can challenge their "arrest, confinement, or mistreatment" while in custody. I never liked Mr. Obama, but his actions make me less and less respectful of his leadership.
I like even less the idiots who voted for this right wing shill.
Maybe Mr. Nader has something going on the short circuit this monster we are calling the USA administration of our government.
http://november5.org/
I'm guessing the HRW guy means normal legal renditions.
For instance, Venezuela has asked for the return of Luis Posada Carilles, accused of blowing up a Cuban passenger plane, etc. Carilles, a fugitive, is still living in the United States, accounts say.
So, the legal process would be "rendition" if the United States were to comply with Venezuela's request and hand him over to authorities there.
-TIA
The normal and legal way to get one government to send someone to another government for trial, is called extradition. It is the only legal process there is for this situation.
"Rendition" has always been about kidnapping although not always to a third country for torture, that has been given the name, extraordinary rendition.
For just plain vanilla rendition, one country could kidnap someone and bring them back for a trial. An example, think of Vanunu who was a victim of "rendition." He wasn't sent to a third country but back to his own country for a trial.
Yes, "extradition" is the proper term, and it applies to criminal complaints made by another country's legal system. Both words mean "surrender," but extradition is the proper legal term.
I agree that kidnapping is a defining aspect of the illegal made-up "extraodinary rendition" term. It's probably fair to say that Israel used extraordinary rendition in snagging Vanunu - and this practice is illegal.
The Obama administration is not being clear.
-TIA
You just knew that if he actually made it all the way to be president, it meant he drunk the koolaid. No way did they put all of this in place to just hand it over to the first populist who comes along to undo their century's worth of work.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured."
This quote sounds like someting out of Richard Cheney's mouth. While stupidity is still not a crime, the last time I checked kidnapping still is.
Right! And not only kidnapping. The only purpose of renditions is to allow somebody to torture the prisoners. Every expert on the interrogation knows that torture doesn't extract any useful information; it's solely for the purpose of terrorizing people and satisfying the sadists in the CIA.
This decision is a big con. Obama is closing down the torture sites at Guantanamo and here but they will simply ship the victims off to 3rd world dictatorships and pay their rulers to do it for them. And unlike at Gitmo those people will never make the back page of the NY Times again.
It sucks.
And it seems that every day now Obama gives in yet again to the Bushits who are still out there and fighting their corner. I'm sick of it.
Rainborowe
This is proof that no change is possible until we get rid of the secret government of corporations that have a strangle hold on the dem/repub party.
Now if 'legitimate use of rendition' was applied to Bush, Cheney, et al, maybe......
But I could be wrong !
The truth of Obama is revealing itself....stay tuned!
Where did all the Obamapolegists go? Where they extremely renditioned?
That is funny, but I don't think they get the joke!
-TIA
Man, you guys are soooo cynical you've lost the ability to read. The second to last paragraph dashes your fervent wish to expose Obama as a hypocrite.
""Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured.""
That's a fellow from HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH saying that he heard Obama saying LOUD AND CLEAR that he doesn't want to design a rendition system that results in people being tortured!
Sorry to disappoint.
Well, if they are just going to kidnap them and whisk them off to a foreign country and hold them for as long as they want without access to family, legal representation, etc. then I guess it's okay. I mean, I guess it wouldn't bother me, or my family, or my employer if I were suddenly disappeared -- as long as no physical torture is involved, it's all good.
Good point, and we should press the Obama administration to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen. But I think the key point here in this discussion and the only point I was making, is that Obama is holding the line against torture. A lot of the posters here are very leery that somehow someway Obama is really a torturer just like Bush and they are grasping at any little straw of information that might maybe indicate that torture is continuing under the Obama administration.
This is the stuff of conspiracies theories, and people will find whatever evidence they need to justify their belief.
At this point Obama's moves to date clearly demonstrate that he is moving forcefully to restore justice.
Maybe if you'd spend more time taking care of yourself and your family instead of persecuting Obama, you wouldn't be doing so bad yourself. And that was a sick joke you made !
Juat like there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, you can't be only a little immoral.
Although Obama seems willing to take many steps to bring us back from the edge where Bush put us, so far there are too many times in which he is unwilling to completely close the book. Thus with permitting CIA rendition. True change will not occur until he is willing - when he can be completely moral.
Politicscorner
The USA, being a prime capitalist country, is into exporting.
Now they're exporting torture. I wonder how much profit is in it because the U.S. doesn't do anything unless there's a dollar in it or an oilfield or two?
Obama has exposed his shambolic nature. Nobody with integrity could give the O.K. to send people to secret, third-world places where the most terrible tortures are carried out.
Obama stands condemned for his hypocrisy and double-standards. Question is: if he can approve of this, what other horrors might he be willing to engage in?
The nuking of Iran springs to mind.
www.dangerouscreation.com
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Don't be afraid, President Obama is not more of the same. Give him the time for careful reflection and evaluation of the challenges on his plate, and, for something we are not used to: transparency.
It's all illegal. It's against the law. Why do you talk about waiting? This isn't complicated as the United States has centuries-old legal traditions that are being broken, even now under the Obama administration.
That there is this much fine print and hesitation suggests we are getting a PR snow job. Did those who voted for "change we can believe in" really vote for this?
Once again, there's no need for reflection.
-TIA
As GoldenMean said, all this means is that there have to be more rendition shuttle flights from one gulag to another. The prisoners don't accumulate air miles, either.
As I have written before, I see no substantive change in our government with the new changemeister in charge.
Obama is personally (or under direction from whomever is running things) signing off on predator air strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing women and children and driving still more people into the arms of the Taliban. He wants Iran to agree to whatever the US wants before we will even talk to them. He wants to give the gambling addicted bankers and fat cats another 850 Billion$, having seen no relief of We the People with the previous two giveaways.
My bank tells me it has no money to loan to retirees or the marginally employed to try to hold on to their homes, but since the bailout, they have proudly announced that they have purchased another bank!
In CheneyBush's last couple of months, we watched them go from giving away anything not tied down, to anything that could be pried up with a crow bar. Now we are watching them remove anything else of value that can be removed with heavy equipment or demolition charges.
In 2006, my "Democrat" Congressman told me we hadn't elected him to stop war or impeach the president, (he said he wasn't sure the president had broken any laws!) but to do things for the people like raise the minimum wage a few cents, of which he was very proud.
I'm sure he is now eagerly figuring out ways for We the People to take advantage of that increase by giving all of us the opportunity to work for minimum wage.
All I can say is, "Bah! Humbug!" There is no change except cosmetic and precious little of that! The United States is going to collapse pretty soon. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions will find themselves in the streets, starving, dying of disease or exposure, but never fear, those who caused this have already hedged their stolen wealth offshore in Swiss bank accounts, caches of gold and gems, purchases of readily defensible islands.
They'll look at the chaos, thank their lucky stars that they aren't in that mess, and discuss ways of acquiring anything that had been overlooked.
What would you do if a country harbored a known terrorist but either you lacked the evidence to extradite him or they refused to cooperate? What if an attack was imminent and the only way to stop it was by using rendition?
There are situations where rendition could prove useful. But we must be careful not to let this power become commonplace or abused.
sierra7
Gee, I guess Iraq would have been correct in abducting Bush/Cheney and rendering them to some secret prison for torture when we continually threatened them prior to March 2003????????????
Get Real!!
We will continue to "render" and send individuals to secret prisons OTHER THAN Gitmo!!
Nothing really has changed.
This fails the logic test.
How do uou 'know' he is a terrorist? Canada 'knew' Maher Arar was a terrorist; the US sent him to Syria where he was tortured for a year, and released as innocent. Canada apologized and made restitution.
You "lack the evidence;" but you 'know?'
They refuse to cooperate. Maybe they simply do not concur with your opinion. But you think it's ok to violate their soverignty and kidnap him?
For what? To foil the terrorists' plan? You think terrorists don't plan for contingencies, such as one being taken out of action?
If you can't extradite but act anyway you have got to be criminal yourself.
This fails the logic test.
How do you 'know' he is a terrorist? Canada 'knew' Maher Arar was a terrorist; the US sent him to Syria where he was tortured for a year, and released as innocent. Canada apologized and made restitution.
You "lack the evidence;" but you 'know?'
They refuse to cooperate. Maybe they simply do not concur with your opinion. But you think it's ok to violate their soverignty and kidnap him?
For what? To foil the terrorists' plan? You think terrorists don't plan for contingencies, such as one being taken out of action?
If you can't extradite but act anyway you have got to be criminal yourself.
24 -- it's just a stupid TV show, guys.
And no on questions the "usefulness" of rendition and torture. It is the legality and morality of it that is in question.
The only way to stop the terror is to stop the injustice. You can't have your imperialist greed cake and eat it to.
Have you ever even watched 24?
I've seen every episode. It's one of the best shows on television.
"The only way to stop the terror is to stop the injustice. You can't have your imperialist greed cake and eat it to."
You are starting with the flawed assumption that the demands of every terrorist group are legitimate. Was the KKK legitimate? Neo-nazis? Hamas?
Joe, joe, joe...
Tv shows like 24 are useful to desensitize the viewers when it comes to violence & torture...
They come up with outrageous fictitious situations that convinces the viewers that torture is useful during "ticking bomb" scenarios...
As if the president would torture the NSA cheif to prevent the security state from carrying out a false flag operation in the US...
Joe, you are being brainwashed to accept untruths when it comes to moralizing and justifying torture and extraordinary rendition...
As for harboring "known" terrorists, the USA is harboring terrorists that blew up a Cuban airliner, and they won't extradite them to Venezuela to stand trial... So go figure that one out...
Once again, have you ever even seen 24?
How can you criticize a show you don't watch?
Are you aware that former Air America host Janeane Garofalo is a cast member?
from my perspective the only CHANGE that is occurring is this.
Rather then openly proclaim we will torture and setting up for the entire world to see , the Gitmos and Abu Ghraibs, Obama is seeing we will once more do it SECRETIVELY.
The Bush/Cheney team in other words were willing to torture but were not ashamed of it.
Obama/Biden are willing to torture but wish to keep it hidden.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time, because many of you cynics apparently can't read...
What about this allows ANY wiggle room for torture?
""Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured.""
This means the Obama administration is still completely prohibiting torture! He will not allow any rendition that results in torture. I mean, even the frigging Washington advocacy director for HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH is cool with this! What will it take for you cynics?
This is great news, you should be rejoicing.
I'd say it's the anonymous Obama-official quote in the article that's disturbing. It suggests that renditions might be used to enable torture.
The article isn't helping either. The argument isn't over renditions per se. It's over "extraordinary renditions." That is, you send the guy off to a country that will do the torture for you.
Rendition is a legal process between states of transferring criminals. It seems like that's not what's being contemplated here. They seem to be talking about the Bush practice of plucking a guy off the street and flying him to some dungeon, and no trial in between.
The HRW guy seems to be affirming something suggested by Obama. However, it seems like the Obama rhetoric is diverging from the practice. That's how I read it.
-TIA
I think you're reading a bit too much into that anonymous statement by the official. In fact he seems to be taking care to rule out torture when he says "But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."
No where in this article is "extraordinary rendition" even mentioned.
I'm not sure how the HRW guy could have been more clear about how he read this ruling on rendition - no torture.
That said, the title to this article had me worried. After I read the article, it seems the author is being a slight bit dramatic. Obviously, the word "rendition" raises an alarm. But if this truly was a back door to torture, and this clearly isn't, it would have definitely been a deal breaker.
You're right Marco, Obama has repeatedly said, "America does not torture." I think we can trust him on that. Extraordinary rendition, by itself, is not torture.
"Obama has repeatedly said, "America does not torture." I think we can trust him on that."
Joe, what exactly is your agenda on this site? You need to be more creative than that in your postings from the White House or DNC propaganda office. Once again, like your Pro-Israeli crimes posts, you are insulting us - you must think we are idiotic fools. Because, surely you are not suggesting that we should trust ANY politician to be telling the truth!
---USAn---
"Because, surely you are not suggesting that we should trust ANY politician to be telling the truth!"
Obviously not! Always be a skeptic (and never trust a republican).
I'm not talking about every single politician. Why put words in my mouth? (what's your agenda?) I'm talking about Obama. I feel that we can trust Obama. So far he's kept his promises, if he starts breaking them then maybe he'll loose my trust. But for now, I'm willing to give him certain presidential powers that I would not have felt comfortable giving McCain, and that Bush should never have had. Unlike them, I think Obama won't abuse his authority.
"Once again, like your Pro-Israeli crimes posts, you are insulting us - you must think we are idiotic fools."
I am pro-Israel and you are pro-Hamas.
My opinion is that you are have somehow been indoctrinated into supporting the Palestinians regardless of their actions. Perhaps you bought into their more secular and populist rhetoric of the 70's, and never noticed how the movement eventually perverted itself into the Islamic fascism of Hamas. I don't what your story is. Though your ignorance is sometimes offensive to me, I would not call you an "idiotic fool". I'm sorry if I've given you that impression. I'm sure you feel that you are on the side of justice and that your opinions are valid. But I view your unabashed support for terrorism to be entirely incomparable with my Christian/progressive values. I can justify a war of self-defense, but never one of aggression.
Is posting on common dreams a part of your junior high school social studies project?
I get a lot of insults.
Can't you at least be clever?
joe, nebraska, marco, you guys are so cute together.
Bush said that. So you believe it?
There are more direct ways of saying that you are going to follow the law. What if the Obama official had said, "We will not honor the extradition of convicted criminals to states that practice torture"?
Despite what you say, the official's response is ambiguous and can allow sending people to countries for the purpose of torture.
It's called "weasel room" language.
-TIA
Then why not try the people right here under the Constitution, if there is evidence? If no evidence, no arrest. That's the American way.
Joe
Hi marco,
This site forum could use well-balanced folks such as yourself. If you've seen Thomas More's posts on this site, he gets whacked a lot despite his moderate tone but he handles the vomiting replies rather well.
P.S.: I like that article you wrote on Peak Oil at
http://articles.marco.org/165
Seriously, people need to quit panicking and try calming down and reasoning for a change.
This is a 4 Plus disgrace. This is not the change nor the humanity that I voted for.
If they want to go after the "bad guys" as the Obama administration official claims, why don't they go after the baddest of the bad: Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, etc????????
The Hope and Change president says it is ok to outsource torture. Same Same, no change. Not that this is a surprise, Obama is just following orders. He gave us a bone by closing GITMO, but the meat is still in the ice box.
You're misreading this article like many in this post. This author is being dramatic. Reread the second to last paragraph
The second to last paragraph is contradictory. What would be the purpose of sending a suspect to another nation - typically a dictatorship - not Canada, France or Venezuela, if not to get around US prohibitions against torture?
I think people are confusing extradition with rendition.
I wouldn't trust Human Rights Watch. They have shown such a serious bias in their reports on Haiti and Venezuela that I must assume that they have become a propaganda institute for US foreign policy.
I've seen this before. Recall in 2001 when a fine-sounding congressionally funded think tank called the "US Institute of Peace" fired one of it's fellows for questioning the wisdom of bombing Afghanistan.
Some links:
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/12/17-2
http://www.haitianalysis.com/2008/2/23/the-failure-of-human-rights-watch-in-venezuela-and-haiti
---USAn---