Yes We Can Render
by Hal_10000
Remember rendition? Remember Barack Obama criticizing it? As with all things hopey and changey, neither does he:
Raymond Azar, a 45-year-old Lebanese construction manager with a grade school education, is employed by Sima International, a Lebanon-based contractor that does work for the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also has the unlikely distinction of being the first target of a rendition carried out on the Obama watch.
According to court papers, on April 7, 2009, Azar and a Lebanese-American colleague, Dinorah Cobos, were seized by “at least eight” heavily armed FBI agents in Kabul, Afghanistan, where they had traveled for a meeting to discuss the status of one of his company’s U.S. government contracts. The trip ended with Azar alighting in manacles from a Gulfstream V executive jet in Manassas, Virginia, where he was formally arrested and charged in a federal antitrust probe.
This rendition involved no black sites and was clearly driven by a desire to get the target quickly before a court. Also unlike renditions of the Bush-era, the target wasn’t even a terror suspect; rather, he was suspected of fraud. But in a troubling intimation of the last administration, accusations of torture hover menacingly over the case. According to papers filed by his lawyers, Azar was threatened, subjected to coercive interrogation techniques and induced to sign a confession. Azar claims he was hooded, stripped naked (while being photographed) and subjected to a “body cavity search.”
Accusations of mistreatment have become de rigueur for terror suspects, so I’m unsurprised to see it in this case. However, even if we were to posit that the accusations are false (as the left is suddenly finding themselves doing), Obama opened the door by using rendition to get a secondary figure in a damn fraud case. What’s the logic here? If you’re not going to render terror suspects, you sure as hell shouldn’t be rendered financial criminals.
(In another show of ideological incoherence, Obama has announced that he supports off-shore drilling—in Brazil.)
I’m sure the Obama people are shocked that this report is coming out—in HuffPo of all places. After all, the media is supposed to be in the tank for them. It’s fine for people to criticize Bush when he spends out of control, muffs foreign policy and breaks the rule of law. But to call Obama out on it? Clearly, HuffPo is astroturfing for someone.
Comments
Oh i cant wait till the howls of protest over this,or when they decide to go after those evil people that hide their money in offshore accounts.
Rendition to the US for trial was never the problem, because it wasn’t what was being done. Extraordinary rendition to third countries/black sites for the purpose of torturing detainees was the problem.
Rendition to the US for trial was never the problem, because it wasn’t what was being done. Extraordinary rendition to third countries/black sites for the purpose of torturing detainees was the problem.
And here is where the left’s inability to work in the real world causes them problems Sean. The reason we were forced to come up with the rendition program was, plain and simply put, the need to treat terrorists as a legal matter/problem. We were treating enemy combatants, which specifically avoid uniforms so they can hide amongst the sheep, in a time of war - they have been at war with us since 1979 even if we have not acknowledged that – as if they were criminals. The moment you put foreign agents in our criminal system you give them the biggest advantage of all. In short, we allow the enemy to turn our own constitution into a death pact.
With a very few exceptions people picked up as terrorists are dead to rights guilty of that stuff. The evidence is there. But defense lawyers will immediately target the one thing they know the US can not afford to have exposed: how they are finding out who the bad guys are, and what the bad guys are up to. As soon as the defense forces the military or any other intelligence organization to divulge these carefully kept secrets, the enemy will use that intel to reorganize operations to avoid detection. Heck, a smart commander would make it SOP to have the US capture some of its people every few months so he could get free intel when they ended up in court and exposed our operations. It is lose-lose for our people. So, left with the almost certain risk of compromising their ability to detect and deal with the enemy over time, capturing terrorists becomes a bad thing. The options left are all crappy.
Bill Clinton’s people, the very ones that painted themselves in a corner with the decision to treat terrorism as a legal matter in the early 1990s, came up with the rendition program, and did so to circumvent their own stupidity. The spate of attacks during the Clinton years happened as the US government kept handing out the terrorists critical intel in the courts. Presented with the complete collapse of the terrorist watching network, some clever lawyer came up with the whole rendition idea. Avoid US courts, and you avoid the problems those courts create. It was actually quite clever, and never a big problem until Bush did it. Then the left suddenly decided it was a horrible and evil thing. It was no longer about protecting our intel operations and keeping our ability to stop terrorists intact, but about “torturing” the poor and innocent “freedom fighters”. I don’t think I have to explain the reasons behind this 180. It is pretty obvious.
With the rendition program being demonized for political purposes Bush’s people came up with Gitmo. It was a stroke of genius. Despite the propaganda to equate the place to a Gulag, an insult to those poor souls that did experience a Gulag, “Club Gitmo” treated these terrorists better than 5 star hotels would. The left didn’t like that either. The democrats painted themselves into a corner by not smacking down the idiots that demanded a halt to both Gitmo and rendition, and did so simply because they were spoilers doing their best to undermine everything Bush was doing. They did not care about the consequences and focused only on getting back into power. It worked. They got back into power. And while playing the spoiled child and destroyer is easy, being the one in charge is not. They are now getting a good taste of their own medicine.
What you have here is Obama’s people trying to find a way to get themselves out of the corner they painted themselves in on Gitmo. If they close Gitmo – and I bet they will never be able to do that – they need somewhere to send the dangerous ones. Democrats know that if they let these people go, when they attack us again, there will be hell to pay. The Obamanauts are hoping rendition will allow them to go back to doing what was done during the Clinton years: treat terrorism as a crime, not an act of war. It didn’t work then – The 9-11 attacks were a direct consequence of not taking the fight to the enemy and waiting until after the fact – and it will not now.
As long as there are people pushing for us to we deal with foreign terorists in court, the terrorists will not just have the upper hand, but drastically increase their chances of another successful attack. Welcome to the real world kids.
My point wasn’t to argue whether or not rendition is good or bad, it was simply to point out that there are different types of rendition. It was started under Reagan, expanded under Clinton, and blown wide open under Bush.
With a very few exceptions people picked up as terrorists are dead to rights guilty of that stuff.
From wiki:
Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge.
That isn’t “very few exceptions”.
Having personally been to Gitmo, I wouldn’t call it even close to a 1-star hotel. They are treated better than they would be at that crazy Texas (I think) sheriff’s prison, sure. I’ll give you that.
Presumably when you say “close Gitmo” you’re referring to the prison component, and not the entire base. I think the prisons will be closed, but they will never close the base. This is increasingly possible given recent reports that European countries are willing to accept detainees (I think I read over 80 have been accepted). Those that can’t be accommodated can go to Michigan (something I wouldn’t wish on most people).
It was started under Reagan
Link please.
Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge.
First off, you will forgive me for pointing out that I take some thins on wiki, but especially this kind of political stuff, and definitely anything about the GWoT or anything that can make Bush look bad or democrats look good, as unreliable. There is a history of this stuff being tailored to serve one party’s political purpose. That having been said though, that people get releases proves more than anything that the system works.
And just because they were released doesn’t disprove that they were terrorists Sean. And how many of those released where then again encountered on the battle field? Last I heard that number was close to 62%.
Having personally been to Gitmo, I wouldn’t call it even close to a 1-star hotel. They are treated better than they would be at that crazy Texas (I think) sheriff’s prison, sure. I’ll give you that.
How would the terrorists be treated in their own counties? In fact, how great would their lives be in those countries they come from, even if they were not in prison? Gitmo is a country club compared to those places. We need to stop pretending that everyone shares our standard of living. The point I made stands: for these terrorists Gitmo is like a visit to a 5 star hotel.
Not even going to bother to ask you when you were at Gitmo and why.
I think the prisons will be closed, but they will never close the base.
I think you are wrong.
This is increasingly possible given recent reports that European countries are willing to accept detainees (I think I read over 80 have been accepted).
Last I heard again, practically every single one of them set impossible to meet conditions or backed out. But you are willing to keep thinking that will happen.
Those that can’t be accommodated can go to Michigan (something I wouldn’t wish on most people).
This is going to work out very well too…..
Fair enough about Wikipedia, but it is the easiest thing that is linkable online.
Extraordinary Rendition by the US
In fact, how great would their lives be in those countries they come from, even if they were not in prison? Gitmo is a country club compared to those places.
Are you arguing that locking people up indefinitely in jail without legal recourse away from their families without charge or evidence of a crime is ok because where they come from is poorer? That seems to be the case, but I hope that isn’t the case. And it is like a 5-star hotel that deprives you of sleep (etc) and generally drives you to want to kill yourself. But yeah, a 5-star hotel nonetheless. (you and I must have different star rating systems)
No mention of conditions or backing out. That’s as of 4:45am this morning, so things might have changed since then.
This is going to work out very well too…..
No doubt. Michigan is a real shithole, and they might be better off where they are.
As to the latest example of rendition in the original posting, the use of rendition in this case is very concerning to say the least, and if the allegations of abuse are correct, disgusting.
Even wiki admits that the case of rendition during the Reagan years resulted in the guy coming to the US to stand trail. BTW I still think this was the wrong approach because it put terrorists into the court system when I think they are war criminals at best. And the rendition program was started long before Reagan. There are other cases of Cold War or criminal rendition that happened before his years. Grabbing people that fled to countries that did not honor extradition isn’t that new. Anyway, what happened during the Reagan administration was not the extraordinary rendition proceedings that pisses of the left, that started with the Clinton people. I got that right. But I do understand why wiki doesn’t want to link that to Clinton and added the Reagan non-entry.
Are you arguing that locking people up indefinitely in jail without legal recourse away from their families without charge or evidence of a crime is ok because where they come from is poorer? That seems to be the case, but I hope that isn’t the case.
Nice try Sean, but no cigar. What I was saying was that locking terrorist foot soldiers up in holding facilities that follow western standards, like Gitmo, immediately affords them better standards of living than they, or practically all of the citizenry of those countries, would have been able to get anywhere else in their part of the world. That is a distinction worth noting. And I am not even bothering with describing prison conditions in those places.
And it is like a 5-star hotel that deprives you of sleep (etc) and generally drives you to want to kill yourself.
The only difference then is that they die alone instead of killing some more people when they do it otherwise? No sympathy from me for these people Sean. None at all. They are the enemy.
No mention of conditions or backing out. That’s as of 4:45am this morning, so things might have changed since then.
We already went through this stuff a few months back only to have the deal fall through on some technicality, Sean. It will happen again soon is my guess. Some of the hardcore people in Gitmo are simply not going to be taken by anyone that doesn’t have a death wish. The Euros loved talking bad about Gitmo when Bush was in charge, but now they actually have to put their money where their mouths are, and my guess is, based on previous experiences with their promises during the GWoT, they will come up short. The left is getting a lesson in the way the real world unfortunately works.
I wasn’t saying that Reagan did the bag job to black sites rendition, only that he started renditions generally for the USA. Israel had been doing it for a while.
The Clinton expansion of, and changes to, rendition policy into the “extraordinary” realm is somewhat an indication that they appreciated that they were at war, and that it wasn’t just a legal matter. If it was, they would just fly them to the US.
That is a distinction worth noting.
But unless that is a “good thing to do”, then it is an irrelevant observation. I could kidnap the Amish and throw them in the Plaza Hotel against their will and that still wouldn’t be a good thing just because they didn’t have electricity or running water where they lived before. If you’re not saying that Gitmo was beneficial to their standards of living, why make the observation at all?
No sympathy even for those hundreds who were picked up by mistake, locked up for years, and who were completely innocent of anything other than their neighbor needed the ransom money? You believe that everyone who was picked up got what they deserved, without exception?
Re: Europe and detainees: I guess we shall see.
But unless that is a “good thing to do”, then it is an irrelevant observation.
And that’s where again you prove that some people do not understand the way the real world works Sean. What’s the alternative? Giving terrorists access to our courts is a death sentence. Yet people like you do not like rendition to other countries nor Gitmo. And you would go batshit if we just decided to question them on the field then shoot them. So my questions is what else?
I could kidnap the Amish and throw them in the Plaza Hotel against their will and that still wouldn’t be a good thing just because they didn’t have electricity or running water where they lived before.
If the Amish started killing people en masse and telling us all they intended to do that to anyone that did not join the Amish religion and put them in charge of the world, I would be right next to you “kidnapping “them, Sean.
Your problem is that you seem to exclusively want to focus on, and find fault with, what we are forced to do, irregardless of what is making us do it. That we are reacting to their violence, seems to be inconsequential to you. My bet is that you do not complain to them about their actions, because you know they would kill you.
If you’re not saying that Gitmo was beneficial to their standards of living, why make the observation at all?
Maybe I need to type slowly for you to get it. I was saying that the claims by the BDS infected brigade that Gitmo was a horrible place, and that these poor victims of evil US aggression is outright contemptible, laughable, and risible, because these monsters are used to much, much worse. They are there for a reason. They are not victims. Even the ones that we let go because we did not have enough reason to hold them.
No sympathy even for those hundreds who were picked up by mistake, locked up for years, and who were completely innocent of anything other than their neighbor needed the ransom money?
Considering that we ended up fighting so many of them again, I think it is safe to say that you are exaggerating. Especially since the people that ended up in Gitmo were those that we felt were the most hardcore and dangerous. Some 800 people ended in Gitmo out of thousands, nay tens of thousands, that were picked up, Sean. In fact most of the people in Gitmo were picked up on the battlefield or during fire fights, not because their neighbor ratted them out for a few bucks. I can almost guarantee you that nobody that got to Gitmo got there without some serious reason for us to believe they were dangerous or had valuable intel. Your assertion that some guy that was picked up based on his neighbor ratting him out is propaganda, intended to make our people look incapable and Gitmo look bad, at best.
You believe that everyone who was picked up got what they deserved, without exception?
No I don’t Sean. As I already said: only the real dangerous ones, or the ones we knew had intel value, ended up in Gitmo. Jaywalking did not get you to Gitmo. The fact that we ended up with a total of less than 800 detainees out of thousands rounded up, and that so many of the ones we released were again encountered on the battlefield, proves that.
The ironic thing is that these Gitmo detainees would slice your head off your shoulders, and laugh hard at you, even as you cried and tried to convince them to spare you because you empathized with their plight and fought for their release, because you are nothing but an infidel dog to them.
Re: Europe and detainees: I guess we shall see.
We will indeed.
They are treated better than they would be at that crazy Texas (I think) sheriff’s prison, sure. I’ll give you that.
You’re thinking of the “Tent City” that Joe Arpaio runs in Maricopa County, AZ, and yeah, he is hated by the left in the Phoenix area. The Phoenix New Times has been a burr up his butt for years, but they never really have been able to find enough scandal on him to get him voted out.
We’ve covered this topic before, Hal.
The use of forcible extradition of suspects from foreign countries to stand trial in the US has been a practice since the Civil War and was ruled as constitutional by SCOTUS as recently as 1992.
It’s dishonest even by Huffington Post standards to call it “Bush-era” anything. The HuffPo author can at least claim ignorance. You, however, have heard this from me at least once before and have no excuse.
I would also rule out the use of coercive techniques by the FBI without more than wild claims by a bunch of anti-American lawyers. Even throughout the waterboarding heyday of 2002-2003, I’ve never seen or heard of any indication that they practiced any coercive techniques even at GTMO.
You’re thinking of the “Tent City” that Joe Arpaio runs in Maricopa County, AZ, and yeah, he is hated by the left in the Phoenix area. The Phoenix New Times has been a burr up his butt for years, but they never really have been able to find enough scandal on him to get him voted out.
Unfortunately for the rabid lefties.. everyone else loves the guy. They’re constantly on his ass with a microscope trying to find anything to get him out of there too.
I mean, actually making being in prison like severe punishment… how dare he?!?
Sean, what do you think about Obama’s drone attacks in Pakistan? These are acts of war. They kill innocents. You must be opposed right? If you are not, then you must feel that locking people up is worse than blasting them into little pieces (or just blowing off a limb or two).
We have to hold prisoners in wartime. And it is humane that we do so. Historically, the alternative was to kill or maim them. In the process of doing this we will hold some people that are innocent (just as we will also kill innocents-and our own soldiers-on the batttlefield). This is inevitable despite the fact that the US military does more and risks more to the lower the number of innocents killed or imprisoned than almost any other military in history.
Against criminals we can afford the better-to-let-ten-guilty-men-go-than-convict-one-innocent ethos. In war that doesn’t work.
Next entry: What Color is Cowardice?
Previous entry: Don't Break My Fall
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8230
Total Logged in members: 7
Total guests: 55
Total anonymous users: 0
Hal_10000,
Important Aspects Of,
Manwhore,
Miguelito,
Mississippi Yankee,
Ronk,
Section8,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 08:58)
Mark_M: The average American is so fucking stupid I don’t give us much hope. I'll paraphrase a great line from Dennis Miller ..."The American people are so stupid...of course, I know better than them. But then again I DO have a bachelor's in communications from Tallahassee Junior College."
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(30 total, Last @ 08:56)
Manwhore: It is striking to me that Alex is now the only real voice of conservative thinking on this blog. For the few who rebel against the idea are hit in the face with a Limbaugh smear. I think it was fucking hilarious that he handed all of you your asses;…
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
Last 30 Comments
I think it is becoming obvious that Obama really has no fucking clue as to what he is doing. I suspect that he’s just letting someone else run the show half the time while he goes about trying to pay off political favors and do his best to be a good leftist without previous handlers.
Too much of what he does is either pointless or strictly amateur. A president he isn’t - he’s just taking up space in the oval office.