Patterico's Pontifications

2/2/2009

Andrew Sullivan still can’t handle the truth on Obama renditions

Filed under: General — Karl @ 5:17 pm

Andrew Sullivan must have been miffed by the pantsing he took over his slavish defense of Pres. Obama’s expanded renditions policy, as he now resorts to quoting Scott Horton (someone who is almost as fond of conspiracy theories as Sully himself):

There are two fundamental distinctions between the (Clinton and Bush) programs. The extraordinary renditions program involved the operation of long-term detention facilities either by the CIA or by a cooperating host government together with the CIA, in which prisoners were held outside of the criminal justice system and otherwise unaccountable under law for extended periods of time. A central feature of this program was rendition to torture, namely that the prisoner was turned over to cooperating foreign governments with the full understanding that those governments would apply techniques that even the Bush Administration considers to be torture.

The ACLU has taken the opposite position since at least 2005:

Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where — in the CIA’s view — federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as “extraordinary rendition.”

The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone. Foreign nationals suspected of terrorism have been transported to detention and interrogation facilities in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Guantánamo, and elsewhere. In the words of former CIA agent Robert Baer: “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear — never to see them again — you send them to Egypt.”

Coincidentally, Michael Scheuer, who developed the program when he was at the CIA, also specifically mentions Jordan, Syria and Egypt as places we sent targets.  So when Sully and Horton raise a stink about detainees being outside the criminal justice process, mentally add, “in countries whose ‘process’ includes ‘serious’ interrogation, torture and  ‘disappearing’ people, never to be seen again.”

Although I would not subscribe to all of Scheuer’s views, it is also worth excerpting a bit from his interview with Die Zeit:

Die Zeit: One of your former colleagues has designated these “extraordinary renditions” as “atrocities”.

Michael Scheuer: If defending the USA is an atrocity, this critic would feel quite at home within the left wing of the Democratic Party. I believe that this shows only a lack of courage to do the dirty work oneself.

Die Zeit: Critics within the agency affirm that the program got out of control after 2001.

Michael Scheuer: Until today it remains very difficult to obtain the lawyers’ consent for an operation. The Europeans should not underestimate the paralysing nature of the American administrative system.

Die Zeit: Which legal changes have taken place since 2001?

Michael Scheuer: We have stopped being such Pharisees as we now imprison the persons ourselves. At least one can say in favour of the Bush government that it behaves more manly and that it takes care of the dirty work itself. And in the media I read that they now apply “improved interrogation techniques”, probably meaning that a little bit more force can be used now than before.

People like Sully would prefer to pretend dirty work never gets done, and to avert their eyes to reports that Obama may even secretly allow enhanced interrogation tactics in a classified annex to the Army Field Manual.  Obama, however, is primarily interested in maintaining the political viability of Obama, which would be nil if the US suffered another attack.  Consequently, Obama will engage in the Kabuki theater of very publicly declaring that Santiago is not to be touched, while issuing different orders afterward.  In return, Sully will twist himself into whatever position necessary to justify his mancrush on the Lightworker.

Update: HotAir-lanche!

77 Responses to “Andrew Sullivan still can’t handle the truth on Obama renditions”

  1. This is so clearly evidence of your not very veiled homophobia.

    JD (48a032)

  2. …and Islamophobia too, to boot!

    AD (b72706)

  3. This should refute accusations that Obama is merely an empty suit. Inside that suit is a towering ambition. Nothing else, to be sure, but at least it is not empty.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  4. The suit clothes an apparition, composed of an emanation from the penumbra of …

    Oh Hell! He’s still an empty suit, just one that’s very (self) centered.

    AD (b72706)

  5. We have stopped being such Pharisees as we now imprison the persons ourselves. At least one can say in favour of the Bush government that it behaves more manly and that it takes care of the dirty work itself. And in the media I read that they now apply “improved interrogation techniques”, probably meaning that a little bit more force can be used now than before.

    Do you suppose Michael Scheuer really talks like this or is this a case of an interview conducted in English, transcribed in German, then translated back into English?

    JVW (bff0a4)

  6. Anyone who uses Scott Horton to substantiate a position is clearly desparate. The next time he substantiates one of his conspiracy theories will be the first time. In that regard he is worse than Glenn Greenwald. Glenn’s prose is, however, only slightly more turgid and purple than Scott’s, but it’s a close race. Horton has Gteenwald in a walk for undisclosed conflicts of interest, unnamed sources, and just plain lack of substantiation. The man is a walking rumor and innuencdo factory who thinks you should take everything he says or writes as gospel.

    His work on the Spitzer and Siegelman conspiracies, which he ginned up himself, has been particularly humorous.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  7. “Pharisees” may have been hypocrites in the original English, which would be even more to the point.

    Karl (2491e1)

  8. what had been a limited program expanded dramatically, with some experts estimating that 150 foreign nationals have been victims of rendition in the last few years alone

    victims? okey dokey. Have it your way Andy. But I don’t think renditioning 150 guys over a period of a few years is a particularly dramatic increase. musclglutes probably rendititioned 150 a year easy in his day. Bareback.

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  9. feets – Is that a kind way to speak about rawmusclglutes of steel, buns of buggery? I think not a lot.

    Remember on those 150 “victims” though it’s those “some experts” doing the estimating. It could be those same “some experts” what thought we were waterboarding every prisoner we detained in Iraq or Afghanistan when it turned out it was only three. I have some serious trust issues with those “some expert” guys.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  10. Ouch, happyfeet. That one is going to sting. But then, after all the personal nonsense that Sullivan peddles, I can’t say he doesn’t deserve the derision.

    Tip of the hat to you.

    Eric Blair (53ab22)

  11. […] Patterico takes a less charitable view of Andy than me (and my view isn’t all that […]

    Animal Farm at the Atlantic « DaTechguy’s Blog (565823)

  12. feets,

    “Victims” is the ACLU’s term, not Sully’s. But that underscores the level of histrionics on the Left generally about this, before the coming of The One.

    Karl (2491e1)

  13. This is so clearly evidence of your not very veiled homophobia.

    Comment by JD — 2/2/2009 @ 5:29 pm

    This is so clearly evidence of your not very veiled logic-phobia.

    RegularJoe (ecc21f)

  14. “This is so clearly evidence of your not very veiled logic-phobia.”

    RegularJoe – This is so clearly evidence that you are not a regular visitor to this blog. JD’s comment was a joke and, unless I’m mistaken, not a serious observation. Are you of the liberal persuasion? That might explain your confusion.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  15. Question: What constitutes “homophobia” in the mind of “JD”?

    Answer: Anything that conflicts with his Received Wisdom.

    MarkJ (7fa185)

  16. Liberals get confused? I may be confused about Michael Scheuer. Isn’t he the guy who, while on the CIA staff and in its employ, wrote and published a book attacking the Bush Administration–with the full approval of his superiors? Forgive me for insulting Mr. Scheuer if I’m wrong–but if I’m right, I would tend to take his statements at less than face value.

    Mike Myers (674050)

  17. oh. Got it, Karl. I should’ve caught that but I was taking extra special care not to click over to the Atlantic and I think I got distracted. My click hygiene has gotten lax lately. I’m trying to do better.

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  18. Yes he’s kind of a far right isolationist with deeply anti-Zionist tendency, he was also Ron Paul’s foreign policy advisor. But he does have
    a point, the Clinton administration, instituted extraordinary rendition, because they thought sending terrorists to these countries would solve
    the problem and provide plausible deniability. Neither really occurred, and it took till 9/11 for a more aggressive solution.

    narciso (57971e)

  19. RegularJoe and MarkJ, I guarantee you JD was being sarcastic with his statement in #1.

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  20. Mike Myers writes:

    Forgive me for insulting Mr. Scheuer if I’m wrong–but if I’m right, I would tend to take his statements at less than face value.

    narciso addresses some of Scheuers biases in #18, and I wrote originally that “I would not subscribe to all of Scheuer’s views.” But as an architect of the Clinton-era rendition policy, his biases are to put the best face on the program, which is why his referencess to Jordan, Syria and Egypt are so telling.

    Karl (2491e1)

  21. “Question: What constitutes “homophobia” in the mind of “JD”?”

    MarkJ – Usually it consists of whatever slurs the left conjures up with which to tar conservatives, just like their nonsensical accusations of racism.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  22. And yes, JD was clearly being sarcastic. After all, I recently had dinner with him, and I didn’t even leave when he started talking about his kilt.

    Karl (2491e1)

  23. MarkJ – JD should speak for himself though.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  24. feets,

    I understand your desire to avoid The Atlantic, but I’m following site policy.

    Karl (2491e1)

  25. Karl – I found JD’s explanation for why he was wearing a kilt curious. I recall him saying “because sheep can hear zippers.” I’m still not sure I understand. Maybe others can explain it.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  26. I think the Pharisees comment is reference to how in the Bible the Pharisees basically get the Romans to do the dirty work they won’t do by labeling Jesus of Nazareth a criminal and an enemy of Cesar.

    But my reco of the bible is weak.

    Obama über alles!!!!! (48dd5e)

  27. Scheuer cares about defending the U.S. and Americans. That’s his distinguishing ‘bias’, or feature, from so many of the partisan hacks from both parties in the government today.

    MlR (dc07b5)

  28. Understood. I was reading today how Louisa May Alcott used to write for The Atlantic. They’ve gone a lot downhill I thought. Also did you know she was a big lesbian?

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  29. Understood. I was reading today how Louisa May Alcott used to write for The Atlantic. She was homosexual too just like Andy. Except a lot less promiscuous.

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  30. All my comments are getting stuck I think.

    happyfeet (4eacbc)

  31. You see, as long as we’re not doing the dirty work – at all – that’s what the media and the Democrats like. That was the Clinton policy, and everyone kept quiet about it. Bush made the mistake of actually setting up a program that was more humane and one where the US was more in control. Now we’ll go back to the Amman Terrorist Accommodations Program™ instead, just so that our hands will look clean, which is all the liberals, Democrats, and media care about. The symbolism. Not to mention letting Jordanians and Egyptians control our intelligence more than has been the case under Bush. Is that what we want? Intelligence filtered through the Egyptians and Jordanians? The CIA’s had a tough going the past two decades enough as it is.

    George (3bd34d)

  32. You may have completely blown off Scott Horton’s argument, but I’m actually impressed that you linked to it.

    Question: What’s the difference between “rendition” and “extradition”?

    Answer: in 2009 – your political agenda.

    But not in 2008, 7, 6, 5, 4 and 3.

    In those years, we had a policy of extrajudicial overseas detention and official cooperation with, and utilization of torture.

    I don’t think shipping criminals back to face their own justice systems is the same. It’s actually not ethically perfect and the potential for abuse exists. But it’s the minimum required by international obligations, frankly.

    There’s all kinds of important differences here. God knows I’d like to see something better, but it’s progress. Meanwhile, us compromised idealists are still a leg up on you sick b*stards, whose only stake in the affair is to p*ss on people who don’t want America involved in torture, and therefore hasten the day it returns to our shores.

    glasnost (ba5787)

  33. feets @30 – Patterico has this filter thingy that gets used for traffic spikes. Comments get listed in the sidebar but don’t show up in the thread right away. My guess is that the thinger is turned on.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  34. What is the Vegas line on Obama disappointing Sullivan?

    Joe (17aeff)

  35. What is the Vegas line on Obama disappointing Sully, even money.

    What is the Vegas line on Sullivan bringing up Trig’s Birth Again? That’s a given, no betting allowed.

    Joe (17aeff)

  36. His work on the Spitzer and Siegelman conspiracies, which he ginned up himself, has been particularly humorous.

    Oh wait? He uses anonymous sources? Like, people who want to talk to him without being punished – like Shinsheki, and Valerie Plame, and Rich Coventino, and Bunnatine Greenhouse, and David Yglesias, and Mary Mcarthy, and tens or hundreds of other nameable people, including people in the Siegelman case itself?

    Scott Horton is a righteous man, who’d be out of business if your heroes didn’t ruin people’s lives for telling the truth about sins and crimes.

    glasnost (ba5787)

  37. “Question: What’s the difference between “rendition” and “extradition”?”

    glasnost – Nice try. As pointed out to the libs on Redstate today, if the Obama version was all rainbows and unicorns, legal and treaty compliant as advertised, people would be calling it extradition as opposed to rendition. My prediction is that “extradition not rendition” will become the new liberal meme.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  38. glasnost,

    Pointing out that Horton’s supposed ideal is functionally worse than the status quo is not exactly blowing it off, so much as dismissing it for the partisan hackery it so clearly is.

    Karl (2491e1)

  39. Consequently, Obama will engage in the Kabuki theater of very publicly declaring that Santiago is not to be touched, while issuing different orders afterward. In return, Sully will twist himself into whatever position necessary to justify his mancrush on the Lightworker.

    That is one fine example of snark. You could give Allahpundit a run for his money Patterico.

    theworldisnotenough (2defd9)

  40. “including people in the Siegelman case itself?”

    glasnost – Your support of Horton is touching. His lack of documentation for his conspiracies is glaring. In Siegelman, that ditzy operative he was promoting to CBS, NBC and he got to testify under to oath to Congress, why didn’t they ask her under oath whether she worked for Rove? Horton seems to have orchestrated the whole thing. Would that have unraveled his conspiracy? His Spitzer theory is great! Neocons convinced Spitzer to patronize hookers so they could nail him on trumped up money laundering charges. I’m buying that one!

    Horton is just another reason the left looks bad.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  41. Andrew Sullivan, quoting Wolcott: “Were there a men’s cologne on the market called Schadenfreude, I’d be judiciously dabbing some on right now, savoring its woody musk.”

    And now, the rest of the story

    Joe (17aeff)

  42. Uhmm considering CIA agent Robert Baer left the CIA in 1997, ALL his experience with
    EXTREME rendition had to occur BEFORE Bush became President. Before 911.

    Kinda hard to get around that little pesky FACT!

    “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear — never to see them again — you send them to Egypt.”

    CIA agent Robert Baer

    All of this happened, according to Robert Baer, BEFORE 1998.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baer

    During the mid-1990s Baer was sent to Iraq with the mission of organizing opposition to Saddam Hussein but was recalled, and investigated by the FBI, for allegedly conspiring to assassinate the Iraqi leader.

    Baer quit the Agency in 1997

    Dschoen (211384)

  43. […] Human Rights Watch, who were nearly hysterical about the practice under President Bush, has changed their minds. See. Obama is changing things already. It looks like Sullivan is spinning in place also. […]

      So, He's Not Totally Stupid. — Just Some Poor Schmuck (2edcfe)

  44. Dschoen,

    The fact that the Clinton-Gore admin. was sending people to Jordan, Syria and Egypt is exactly the point. Sully and Horton seem to think it’s better to have detainees going into those “legal systems” than being held at places like Gitmo.

    Karl (2491e1)

  45. It’s actually not ethically perfect and the potential for abuse exists.

    More hilarious understatement of the thread.

    Dmac (2fab96)

  46. Yeah, I’m thinking about sending fmr. Pres. Bush a “compromised idealist” t-shirt.

    Karl (2491e1)

  47. Guess what, Obama’s rendition same as the old Clinton and Bush rendition.

    Meanwhile, Sullivan will sing “I don’t know how to love him…” about The One. Magic I tell you, magic!

    Joe (17aeff)

  48. The fact that the Clinton-Gore admin. was sending people to Jordan, Syria and Egypt is exactly the point. Sully and Horton seem to think it’s better to have detainees going into those “legal systems” than being held at places like Gitmo.

    False dichotomy of the day. The Bush Admin should have tried that theory – the “it’s nicer than Syria” theory .. oh wait, they couldn’t use that game, because they were still sending people to Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in *addition* to Gitmo.

    Hey, I don’t want people sent to Egypt to be tortured.. for any reason. But you’re pretending not to be able to tell the difference between

    “let’s send this guy to egypt to get tortured so he will cough up intel for us”

    and “Egypt says this guy committed crimes, and we caught him, so he goes back to egypt, where he may indeed be tortured, but not at our request.

    But you’re not dumb enough to have really missed that, so the tendency is to see it as deliberate, defamatory misunderstanding.

    glasnost (ba5787)

  49. people would be calling it extradition as opposed to rendition.

    I invite you to elaborate on how the proposed policy is not equal to extradition. Please explain.

    The reason it’s still being called “rendition” is because it was previously called “extraordinary rendition” because it was sending people who weren’t charged with crimes under their home countries’ judicial systems. Heck, it was sending people to states they weren’t even citizens of.

    They’ve ended the policy, but described the circumstances where they still will be sending people to those countries – and those circumstances = extradition.

    I like information. Demonstrate how this is wrong in the substance, huh?

    glasnost (ba5787)

  50. “But you’re not dumb enough to have really missed that, so the tendency is to see it as deliberate, defamatory misunderstanding.”

    glasnost – You’re not dumb enough to pretend that the “renditions” talked about by the Obama folks, extrordinary or otherwise, is within the judicial systyems of all affected countries are you, ’cause that would just be making shit up and they could call it extradition.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  51. “I invite you to elaborate on how the proposed policy is not equal to extradition. Please explain.”

    glasnost – I like information too. I invite you to read the like at comment #47 written by a liberal of his take of Horton, Digby and Greenwald’s hypocrisy here. It’s pretty freaking obvious.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  52. Kilts are great for sneaking up on sheep.

    If you did not get my sarcasm, there is not much I can do for you. Racist.

    Glasnost must be Sully’s sock puppet. Change the name and all is forgiven!

    JD (55d896)

  53. glasnost,

    People held at Gitmo would be better off in Syria or Egypt, regardless of whether the US still might send some there?

    The US has no moral responsibility when it kidnaps someone and drops them in Syria or Egypt?

    You really think that we’re not expecting intell in rendition cases?

    And snatching someone without the knowledge of the host country is not extradition. That’s extraordinary rendition.

    Please. Please. Puh-leeze.

    Karl (f07e38)

  54. Karl, just so we know, you’re for any kind of rendition right? I mean, as a lawyer in good standing, you’re in favor of all sorts of extra-judicial activities and your problem with the premise of this critique is not renditions, but just that a lefty decided to do something you liked?

    Since Obama is, according to you guys, doing what you think is right, why the hell are you criticizing him?

    I mean, unless it’s just partisan hackery masquerading as a concern for American security married to a desire to beat the hell out of Sullivan?

    Such serious thinking on your part.

    timb (a83d56)

  55. Hey! I just saw a troll eating a straw man!

    John Hitchcock (fb941d)

  56. He didn’t even put any ketchup on that strawman.

    SPQR (72771e)

  57. timb – What are you positions on closing Gitmo and rendition?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  58. your

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  59. I read the link. I also went back, read the LA Times article and executive orders. Speaking of speculative conspiracy theories..

    Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. “Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance,” Malinowski said.

    So much for “human rights groups hypocrisy”

    In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to reexamine 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.

    And so much for the alledged hypocrisy.

    The liberal’s case at your link is that, pre-2008, rendition is wrong both because of torture and because it circumvents due process.
    That’s still true. As for what Obama is or is not doing, a non-douch*bag look would suggest he still hasn’t figured out if there’s a way to, say, involve other countries in interrogation overseas while avoiding torture. That’s something to keep pressure on Obama about. Thanks for pointing that out! Of course, if your movement didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have to settle for only making medium-sized improvements to the debasedness.

    glasnost (ba5787)

  60. glasnost – Translation: All of which means at this point we’re just making shit up and we can’t tell you Obama’s program is different because they’re “studying” it.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  61. The US has no moral responsibility when it kidnaps someone and drops them in Syria or Egypt?

    I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s still an improvement on cutting deals with Syria and Egypt to explicitly get our hands on it, and sending people on our own behest, rather than their behest. Because then there’s more of it.


    And snatching someone without the knowledge of the host country is not extradition. That’s extraordinary rendition.

    I accept that premise. Now all we’re missing is some relationship between Obama’s executive orders and a program such as you describe.
    Are you now arguing that the anonymous source-speculation in the LATimes is reliable description of what’s going on?
    Isn’t there some bot that boots people from this site for doing that?

    “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 — but that designing that system is going to take some time.

    I don’t really know what that means. But if you conservative swingers got Republican Senators, Rush, and Malkin to join hands with us liberals, I feel pretty da*n certain that the end product would involve the end of people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured.

    I’m not holding my breath, but I’m reasonably confident it will work out that way even without you.

    glasnost (ba5787)

  62. Where are we going to send Egyptians and Syrians, glasnost? Canada? Sweden?

    Techie (6b5d8d)

  63. glasnost, you appear to still be calling it ‘rendition’ – I thought it was ‘extradition’ or have you conceded that point?

    And what is daleyrocks’ “movement” exactly?

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  64. Ah, missed your follow-up point. Where you point to Team Obama’s words. I’m sure those comfort the tortured. Gee, why didn’t Bush think of this – just say “hey we haven’t figured out” this or that, but we’re studying it, and we’re gonna do what works. Then just go on doing the same old illegal / immoral thing as the prior adminstration, and the press loves ya!

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  65. “Are you now arguing that the anonymous source-speculation in the LATimes is reliable description of what’s going on?”

    glasnost – Are you now arguing that Obama has not in fact changed anything?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  66. FWIW, freeballing a kilt in Chicago in late January is a fairly unpleasant experience.

    JD (55d896)

  67. You should all know by now that the rhetoric is soooooo much more important than the actual actions. Baracky is the poster-child for the concept of style over substance.

    JD (55d896)

  68. glasnost at #36:

    Oh wait? He uses anonymous sources? Like, people who want to talk to him without being punished – like Shinsheki, and Valerie Plame, and Rich Coventino, and Bunnatine Greenhouse, and David Yglesias, and Mary Mcarthy, and tens or hundreds of other nameable people, including people in the Siegelman case itself?

    glasnost at #59

    Are you now arguing that the anonymous source-speculation in the LATimes is reliable description of what’s going on?

    Pablo at #66 Aaaahahahahahaha!!!

    Pablo (99243e)

  69. Question: What’s the difference between “rendition” and “extradition”?

    Answer: in 2009 – about 30 comments.

    carlitos (ac34f6)

  70. Good job Pablo.

    SPQR (72771e)

  71. married to a desire to beat the hell out of Sullivan?

    More projection from Timmah!

    Dmac (49b16c)

  72. I’m wondering at whose behest rendition occurs — other than the US.

    I’m also amused at the continuing attempt to pretend that this is some sort of extradition. Q: What judge oversees a rendition?

    Also, one of the reasons they end up in Jordan, Syria and Egypt is that these are the countries where those snatched have charges pending against them, as opposed to Ireland or Japan.

    Again, glasnost and others really should read the Dissenting Justice link posted at #47.

    Karl (f07e38)

  73. Did timmah take a position or is he still just bravely sniping from the sidelines?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  74. The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

    Ted (429bc3)

  75. I’m picturing someone with a crudely-lettered sandwich board.

    Karl (f07e38)

  76. Thanks for that one, Ted. You almost made me have a wreck. I would be ROTFLMAO if I were not driving.

    JD (55d896)

  77. […] though there is every reason to suspect Obama and Sullivan are not genuine about it, given that Sullivan excuses Obama’s renditions policy. Apparently, it has not occurred to Sullivan that Obama may simply be caving to the CIA to protect […]

    The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Andrew Sullivan giving himself whiplash on Obama (e2f069)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8931 secs.