Because we presume innocence until proven guilty, the foudnation of our legal process, the very foundation of America.

The orders DID NOT expresly prohibit renditions, bottom line, and the loophole can be exploited, right?

Which, I think, was the intent.

Do you kind of see it?

It is good to be aware of “gray” areas. But at the same time, I think it is important to recognize that just because a policy or law may have a flaw doesn’t automatically equate to a nefarious reason for there to be such a gap in the language.

And I might agree with you if we were speaking of Hillary Clinton.

Maybe.

But we’re speaking of Obama, a President who has retained John Brennan, a person who advocated for the worst of Cheney’s torture polciies and sick think, IMO, treason, really.

I am not pragmatic about the act of treason.

And I think my conclusion is supported by not only the quote from Obama’s own people in regard to rendition i.e., “but if done within certan parameters it is sometimes a useful option,”but also by the loopholes left by the nuanced, non-specific language, so necessary to good law.

Some people get the benefit of the doubt.

Obama doesn’t, and neither do those in the Pentagon who failed to advocate against Cheney.

In addition:

“‘This is not a secret annex that allows us to bring the enhanced interrogation techniques back,’ said a senior Obama administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing legal strategies. ‘It’s not.’

“But the language left the impression that the Obama team could later decide to adopt separate standards for the military and the CIA, and that any additional methods approved for the agency would remain classified.

Perhaps you see it differently, having a different set of expectations.

So, this isn’t really a matter of subtley discreditng “an opinion on a blog,” it’s seems to be more of a standard agreement among those who understand how legal language can be parsed to exploit loopholes, nuance indicating the truth.

At the very least, the WAPO and the LA TImes are reporting this as accurate, contrary to Larry’s analysis.

We will have to agree to disagree, here, btw, to each his own, but I disagree with you, and with Larry.

I think he’s allowing renditions.

It is always good to surface from the daily domestic subtrafuge…(you know the one with the big sucking sound) ?… to know that NQ is the place keepin it real.

Thanks LJ.

Sorry, not trying to be dense, but can you show me the “weasel language”?

Seriously.
Because the language above is clear. There is a prohibition of black sites and the reinstatement of notification of detainees to Red Cross and such agencies.

Help me out here.

you say the quoted language doesn’t authorize rendition for torture. it also doesn’t prohibit it. understand your wish to think the best of the jerk, but your legal analysis is off.

the one left himself a giant loophole and knows exactly what he’s up to.

Well hidden doesn’t automatically mean nefarious, right? I mean, I know we’re talking Cheney, and my opinion on him has been made clear, I run CheneyWatch.org for a reason.

But hidden doesn’t automatically mean nefarious. And the WaPo article seems to do the same thing as the Greg Miller article. It asks for some solid statement of prohibition.

“CIA Detention. The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.”

Isn’t that explicit above? “shall not operate” seems prohibitive language. Further the second statement above:
“All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained”

This seems to set a standard not upheld during the Bush years with “Black sites”.

SO help me here…I’m not sure what explicit statement is needed.

My comment is not intended to give Obama a card he doesn’t have yet, but to ask what is missing that you expect.

TT007

“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.”

This, from the Chicago Tribune.

What do you think of this quote?

In the comments section, someone made the point rendition is still allowable, Obama using spin and “weasel language,” to pretty it up, as lawyers will do.

I agree.

It’s been my impression when they leave it classifed, it means they’re hiding something, sometimes having nothing to do with national security. That, and 3.00 will get you a cup of coffee, I know, but sometimes you just have to go with your instincts, and I do, here, given SOME military, and ALL Cheney history.

In addition, Obama’s refusal to come out and repudiate rendition, cleanly, is telling, particularly as reported by Dan Froomkin, of the WAPO, whom I’ve quoted below, in another post.

Sometimes, you just have to follow your instincts, and given the others who apparently feel Obama left the door to renditions open via his language, I agree.

BTW, it’s this same instinct, or pattern, that makes me think the “Whitey tape” is most likely real — Larry has a certain history, really not given to out and out lying, or dirty tricks.

Whereas the military, or the CIA under Cheney, well…

“The orders did not prohibit renditions, in which the CIA has secretly transferred prisoners captured in one country to another without trial. Although they mandated that the CIA adhere to interrogation guidelines used by the military, officials said that a separate ‘protocol’ may still be established to govern intelligence agency interrogation practices.

“Those issues and others are to be reviewed by a Cabinet-level task force that will study how to deal with the most vexing legacies of the Bush administration’s detention program, Obama said.”

And Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes write in the Los Angeles Times that Obama “appeared to leave an opening for the CIA” to once again go beyond the 19 approved techniques listed in the Army field manual. “The order calls for the creation of a special task force, headed by the U.S. attorney general, to study whether the Army field manual is adequate and to recommend ‘additional or different guidance for other departments or agencies.’

“Administration officials emphasized that there was no intent to create a loophole.

“‘This is not a secret annex that allows us to bring the enhanced interrogation techniques back,’ said a senior Obama administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing legal strategies. ‘It’s not.’

“But the language left the impression that the Obama team could later decide to adopt separate standards for the military and the CIA, and that any additional methods approved for the agency would remain classified.

“Retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the president’s nominee to serve as the next director of national intelligence, testified Thursday that the government would withhold specifics from any new interrogation document for fear that ‘we not turn our manual into a training manual for our adversaries.’”

It sounds to me like the Obama White House needs to state even more categorically that it will not under any circumstances approve interrogation techniques that violate the Geneva Conventions — and it needs to do so on the record. A background briefing won’t cut it — even when a public schedule and multiple references by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to “Greg” in his press briefing makes it clear that the briefers were White House Counsel Greg Craig and Deputy White House Counsel Mary DeRosa.

Unless I misread…

What specifically in the army field manual are you “uncomfortable with”?