Panetta And More On Rendition
By Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy on February 15, 2009 at 8:45 AM in Backtrack Obama, Bamboozling, Barack Obama, CIA, Current Affairs, George Bush, Media Bias, Rachel Maddow
Well, Leon Panetta has been confirmed as the new CIA Director. He has confirmed the position of this White House, same as the last White House, on rendition. And he has added this little bonus tidbit:
Obama has signed an executive order limiting interrogation techniques to the 19 outlined in the Army Field Manual, but Panetta conceded those might not be enough. He said he would not hesitate to go to the president and ask for additional authority if there was “a ticking-bomb situation.”
Well, that’s just jake, isn’t it? Wonderful news.
I wrote yesterday about this issue, and thanks to truthtelling007, I have two videos to share with you on the continuation of this policy.
First up is a general overview from Fox news:
Then there is Obama Water Carrier, Rachel Maddow, on Obama’s decision to continue this policy. Now let me say, I used to like her, but from the very beginning of the Primary, she made it QUITE clear that she supported Obama, and the vast majority of her reporting was skewed to support Obama. So here she is, discussing Obama’s continuation of this Bush policy:
Once again, why she is surprised is BEYOND me. Here she is discussing with Russ Feingold the FISA vote this summer, and Obama’s vote for these expanded presidential powers. Oh, and Russ, whom I also used to like, continues that meme that Obama is a Constitutional Scholar, that he’ll restore the Constitution, blah, blah, blah, if he becomes President, that he would rescind a lot of Executive Orders (so far, only for unions), etc. I recommend having clear access to a bathroom or barf bag for all the GLORIOUS things Obama will do. Anyway, here it is:
So, yeah, Rachel – that, along with his flip flops on so many other issues, should have been a big, huge clue to you about what Obama was really going to do when he got into office. Hate it for you that you clung to your hopes and dreams rather than looking at the reality of who this guy is. Maybe now you’ll actually try to engage in some actual freakin’ journalism. That’s MY hope, Rachel. That you’ll actually take off the rose-colored glasses, stop drinking the damn Kool-Aide, and do the job of a true journalist.
Just to be clear – Obama and his new CIA chief, Panetta, are crystal clear on the policy of rendition. And it is exactly the same as the last guy. It’s about damn time people started to deal with the REAL Obama, and stop trying to prop up the IMAGE of Obama you helped to create. Any time now.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
On an earlier thread about this same matter, I was summarily shot down concerning my opinion that his executive order really did nothing because it incorporated, by reference only, certain treaties, law, and regulations, which is not equivalent to actually stating the policy. My 25 years of experience in dealing with the government bureaucrats and their “rules” have given me the understanding that if something isn’t said in black and white, it is subject to end-runs. I know this will cause great consternation but that has been my experience.
Yes Ferd, I believe you’re right. Anybody who has spent any time dealing with the federal government knows that some laws are intentionally written in shades of grey. It leaves them an out if things go wrong. Or they can use the law in ways not originally intended. Legalese. Meh. What was it Shakespear said about lawyers? Oh and great videos.
It also allows bureaucratic “interpretation” of the “requirements” such that they really aren’t requirements at all but fuzzy little normative statements with all sorts of ways to spin them to one’s advantage or another’s disadvantage.
I should have added:
Which directly leads to the finger-pointing and blame-shifting, which is the MO of all politicians.
All this vacuous legalese is written to protect the guilty, irrespective of party affiliation.
Or to get rid of people they deem to be a pain in the ass. I’ve seen regs that get turned on folks that had the guts to speak out. Whether it be preformance evaluations or moral clauses.
You’re spot on. They do get turned on folks, as well. We need regulations and laws but for Christ’s sake, why aren’t they written in a manner conducive to compliance? Oh, because that would obviate the need for attorneys. Stupid question, mea culpa.
First, who is surprised that Obama is Dubya II? Second, does everyone really think that, while torturing people, the offenders stop to make a video of it, call in and report it, etc.? We will never 100% know what goes on.
Scratch transparency off the list of promises made.
Next
So, let me get this straight. Obama outlaws waterboarding by executive order, but leaves the door open for future waterboarding by means of a study group. The Attorney General declared that waterboarding is torture in a public statement (but not, I note, in a formal legal opinion). The CIA director says the the Army Field Manual may not be sufficient in “ticking bomb” situations, and that he may have to go back to the President for authorization to, among other things, waterboard.
Somehow, I don’t think that the second executive order that allows Panetta to turn on the hose will be unclassified and publically disseminated.
Will an Obama supporter, if there are any left, please explain this to us? Perhaps we are just too “low information” to understand the complexities of prohibiting something in an executive order, calling it torture and immoral, and then retaining the prospect of using it in an “emergency.” That sounds a bit like hypocrisy, to me.
Couldn’t sneak it past ya, could they?
Yes, I’d say you have summed it up perfectly! And no, I doubt there will be much made of it should Panetta decide in the future that he needs more, um, “resources” available to him in the War on Terror.
As for Obots being able to walk and chew gum (that is basically what PennyPacker said, right?), I guess my question is – what is it you could possibly still like abt this guy after he has reneged on ALL of the major promises he has made? Because you think he is “dreamy,” or something, you don’t CARE what he actually does while he is in the White House? Or that in little more than 3 weeks, he has already taken TWO vacations? That he doesn’t even bother to do the work himself, but “outsources” it to people like Pelosi, who writes a bill chock full of frivolous spending? That his entire political career has been built on getting people thrown off ballots, having his name slapped on legislation he didn’t craft, getting votes that were not cast for him? Oh, yeah – I can sure see how you can still “like” him and not like his policies. Except he is the FREAKIN’ president, and what he says/does matters.
And, I bet you were one of the ones screaming at the top of your lungs (as I was) abt Bush’s extraordinary rendition, but suddenly, it is okay if Obama does it?? Oh, I mean – you still like him even though he keeps Bush’s policies, and works less than most other Americans have to work.
Yeah – you’re right – I don’t get that.
I spend a lot of time now reflecting on my absurd assumption that I was somewhat informed about politics.
My high school American History teacher would have told us more of the true facts, I think, if he had not known that all the class rooms were monitored.
I’m guilty, as well, for “wanting” to be loyal and obedient, even though many things disturb me and cause my stomach to churn.
With today’s technology, we see these people turn on a dime daily, and it is frightening!
I’ve spent 30+ years dealing with the federal government. Why am I not surprised?
I hear you.
Have you guys ever considered the notion that Obama supporters can be critical of decisions or policies the president has made, but can also hold two thoughts in their head and generally support him anyway for the things they like?
It could be that we’re less beholden to an “image” than the vast number of haters at No Quarter.
I take it, then, that you approve of Panetta’s statement since you did not address the thrust of the text.
I am not surprised, though, because when confronted with
difficultquestions you don’twant tohave an answer for, bots such as you use the old politics of diversion and subterfuge.How’s that change and hope working for you?
Okay, I’ll say it for you: I didn’t like that statement from Panetta. How’s that?
And this makes me an “Obot” how?
Now let me ask you. In that Rachel Maddow clip, the ACLU attorney interviewed at the end states that there’s simply no moral equivalency between this administration and the last one. And then he states the substantive ways in which Obama’s torture policy differs from Bush’s. Do you agree with him or disagree?
I pretty much know where you’re going to go — you hate everything about Obama, so your opinion is a foregone conclusion.
No I do not agree. Moral equivalency is not the issue. Rendition is wrong-end of story. The ACLU attorney and you are equivocating. As it is, That One is nothing more than Bush-lite in this matter. Creating an Executive Order that incorporates treaties, laws, and regulations by reference is not the same as specifically addressing the issues with concrete statements.
Shocking.
But I’ll take the opinion of an ACLU attorney, working on cases related to the topic at hand, over yours. See, ’cause I’m an “Obot”, and you are the very embodiment of objective reason.
You left out the rest of my statement, troll. Just like the obamabot you are. You deliberately fail at every opportunity to put statements in their proper context.
Let’s look at what else I posted:
You equivocate and take statements out of context. What other lies by omission and subterfuge are you guilty of?
But I will add that I too think rendition is wrong. I didn’t like it under Bush, or under Clinton (who started it), and I don’t like it now. It’s “off-shoring” an evil practice that isn’t effective at achieving its stated objective.
Good of you to say that, Pennypacker. I take back my snark from above. My apologies.
As to the ACLU attorney, the reason I find his words disingenuous is that the ACLU has made it quite clear for some time now that they back Obama. And they, like so many other supporters, continue to be “shocked” and “disappointed” when he reneges on his campaign promises, listening to his words rather than looking at his DEEDS. So, it isn’t so much his LEGAL opinion here, but his OPINION, that can be challenged.
See, to me, the first clue abt who he really is is what I said above – when someone gets all of his opposition removed from the ballot so he can run unopposed, that really sets the stage for how he operates. That he has continued to benefit politically from work he never did continues to tell the tale. Add to that his complete unwillingness to disclose ANY papers – NONE – and then claim to be “transparent” is more like Bush than, well, Bush! Even Bush gave up his college and grad school transcripts. Not Obama. Add to that his thinking it is “fair” for him to be given certified legal votes cast for Clinton so he can be the nominee, and I say that is a man who is not the least bit trustworthy or ethical.
So – this latest surprises me not one whit.
[ADMIN: PENNYPACKER, YOU MAY NOT USE A FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS on THIS BLOG. Please CORRECT THAT with a REAL E-MAIL ADDRESS, or your privileges will be suspended.]
So we both abhore rendition. Good.
And here’s where we part ways. How do you determine what the entire ACLU thinks about Obama? It’s not “quite clear” and you don’t know!
But you’re just saying that so you can dismiss what their attorney said about substantial differences between the current administration’s policies and the last one. And it’s because you don’t want to have any nuanced, thoughtful opinion of the president — you just don’t like him!
No, I do not like him – I have made that abundantly clear. And I do not like him because he is unethical,immoral, sexist, homophobic, and a cheat. That’s not news. And not that I don’t WANT to have a more “nuanced” position – he has done absolutely nothing to disabuse me of my opinion of him. Rather, it becomes more solidified as time goes by.
That being said, there is a difference between nuance and LEGAL position. If Obama is maintaining BUSH’S stand on extraordinary rendition, maintaining BUSH’S policy, how is that at ALL different from Bush? It isn’t! Thus, the ACLU attorney is making more of a PERSONAL statement than legal in that instance because there is NO difference between the two positions – they are one in the same. (And the ACLU most definitely was supportive of Obama in the campaign. Like I said, I am a card-carrying member, and get all the emails/newsletters from them.)
The ACLU has decided to represent the Rev. Fred Phelps’ clan, which protests Iraq war vet funerals – claiming some weird association about God hating them due to homosexual something.
Sure the ACLU just loves PBO!
Julie, the ACLU also offered to represent Rush Limbaugh over his medical records and they represented the neo-nazis in Chicago when they wanted to hold a parade through a predominately Jewish neighborhood. They take cases based on the Constitutional merit and that is what has made the organization so unique. Like RRRA, I am also a member and have been for years and she is right when she speaks of their support for Obama. In many cases, it was in opposition to John McCain, but the results are the same. I have never known them to do such a thing since it isn’t meant to be a partisan or political entity. I was also a member of moveon.org for many years and in all that time, they never endorsed a candidate since they were also non-partisan. It could never have been argued realistically the ACLU is a liberal group although Conservatives tried to categorize them as such because in fact, they have represented groups many times in the past which were not liberal. If Obama continues with the Bush policy on rendition and/or enhanced interrogation, who will be left to call him on it? Like Rev. Amy, I don’t like him and do not trust him. My feelings were solidified with the FISA vote along with information he had received campaign contributions from telecoms prior to the vote. What worries many who are liberal, but did not support Obama is the absence of anyone in a position of importance who will be willing to speak out against his policies. There is too much unreasonable devotion to him and IMO, that is dangerous. The Republicans will speak out, but they lost their credibility so no one will listen.
Yeah, “nuanced” must be the new buzz word in Obamaland because only then can unquestioning support for The One be rationalized. It’s really laughable to hear the
nuanced thoughtful opinionsrationalizations held by Obots in support of The One. For example, Jeremy Skahill’s comment on CSPAN really sums up such a view:Or, as another of Obama’s media minions did after criticizing the Stimulus Bill, just substitute “hope” for “leadership” and you get the same nuanced view that Obots so highly esteem.
Thank you very much, but I prefer to cling to my bitter views than to cling to an hypocritical nuanced view — i.e. rationalized view — of The One. At least, my position holds his feet to the fire; yours perpetuates a fetishization of the same.
Nuanced to a bot means we’ll call it anything we like and you’ll just have to take our word about what it really means. That hope and change really didn’t mean hope and change, after all. It was all a nuanced ploy to get nuanced voters to buy into their nuanced
spinlies.As long as we’re on the subject of torture, I do wish that all these supporters of That One would stop torturing the English language. Using the word nuance with the subject of torture is a functional disconnect. Torture is torture; lies are lies; and equivocation is fallacious.
trixta –
More like “seanced”. It’s voodoo mumbo jumbo horseshit.
The PBO’s managed to out-insult 43’s Administration in less than a month.
Obama’s torture policy ???
He has one? the only thing I have seen him torture is the truth. But hey, there is still time to include humans.
(Snark off) This is what you get when the continuity of government being immune to the visible manifestation of the gory details…
The bottom line is there is blood on the hands of any human that condones torture or looks the other way.
Thanks for speaking out on it Rev. Amy.
The ticking time bomb is only fear itself.
The fact that there is STILL a “torture policy” (which includes rendition) IS the problem!!!!!!!
BTW, what exactly did Obama mean all along by “change”?
Once this critter is out og the box, how does it get put back?
http: //www.amazon.com/How-Break-Terrorist-Interrogators-Brutality/dp/1416573151
And they’re STLL talking in terms of coersion and ‘ticking time bombs.’ I thought that was soooo pre-Abu Ghraib. Obama seriously needs to spend a weekend with this book : “How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq” by Matthew Alexander.
If Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, can be captured using a violence-free, reverse psychological approach of respect and gentle rapport in place of control and torture it can happen to anyone.
That sickened me and I will never even click on a Rachel video.
She made cutesie of that which is so serious, that she had such strong opinions and judgement on. To try to pretend it wasn’t as bad as it was. That is not the Rachel Maddow of pre 2008. She just betrayed even her fundamentils.
Disgusting display of partisan rights championing.
I have heard rumors that the hottest of hot ticket events for high-value Obama supporters like Maddow, Matthews, Spielberg and Hanks will be private screenings of “enhanced interrogation technique” videos on the next couple of bad guys that are extraordinarily rendered. They’ll be narrated by Panetta himself, and along with the screening will be included one of the pens that President Obama used to sign the secret executive order authorizing said “enhanced” techniques.
The price? For mouthpieces like Maddow and Matthews, continued fawning. Hollywood is going to cough up the bucks, however, I’m hearing a cool million per taped session. Hef will be hosting at the Mansion in LA. Very cool!
No more spam!! Anti Spam
No more spam!! Anti Spam
comment3, Ambien Online, W9×7k, Semenax, pJ06M, VigRx Pills, 9aHVN, Purchase Levitra, Q7k1M, Buy Hgh Online, KnbuE, Purchase Propecia, 8Jwjb.
Hi, you have a great site! I also recommend this site: rah0w , thanks!
GdOvaN, qlg0y, thanks.