An article on the Obama administration’s rendition stance provoked a fierce response from some on the left. But even if it is mistaken, the new policy still falls substantially short of what civil and human rights advocates called for during the Bush years.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post
The L.A. Times published a story on Sunday claiming that Barack Obama’s recent executive orders (EO’s) largely retained the Bush administration’s rendition policy in spirit, if not in letter. Hilzoy weighed in with several criticisms, noting that the EO’s explicitly required adherence to a list of laws and conventions. She also explained the distinction between rendition and extraordinary rendition, and of the author wrote “It’s not clear whether he knows that rendition includes perfectly normal things like extradition.”
Conservative commentators happily noted the article as well, some with the favored stance of studious ignorance. The next day Scott Horton suggested that intelligence officials and their allies fooled an easily led reporter into furthering “efforts designed to show that Obama is continuing the counterterrorism programs that he previously labeled as abusive and promised to shut down.” The theory goes that the CIA is very concerned about its liability for its actions during the last president, and if it can maneuver the current one into supporting the same policies it will provide a measure of protection. Digby, whose judgment I trust, backed off her initial criticism of the administration and questioned the veracity of any reporting that relies on unnamed intelligence officials (while also noting the administration needs to spell out its plans more clearly). In short, there was a lot of back an forth.
I respectfully disagree with digby, Horton et. al. on this one, though. While I am perfectly willing to discount the sotto voice whispers of intelligence agency sympathizers and am skeptical of the motives of the unnamed administration official (we should be suspicious of any anonymous source not acting as a whistleblower), there is plenty not to like in his/her statement that rendition “is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice.” The phrases “some circles” and “kicked up a big storm” are especially grating because they imply it is an issue that a mere handful of monomaniacal civil liberties advocates are fixated on. It has the ring of someone who, having achieved power, has become newly appreciative of the expansive executive claims of the Bush years. I can easily envision the president looking at things in a new light thanks to his new position.
Also, it is not enough to simply say we are going back to a pre-Bush concept of rendition; the bell cannot be unrung. The very word now conjures up images of torture and dungeons. The well is poisoned. It now sounds more like a semantic game to say we are dropping extraordinary rendition but keeping the regular variety. After all, these are not scientific terms. At what point does it cross the line, and who decides if it does? If we are a nation of laws and not men it is not enough to be guided by our perception of our leaders’ intentions. After eight years of President Wiggle Room at least that much should be clear. Even more troubling, it looks like some supporters are setting up an Osama bin Laden scenario as an analog to the Jack Bauer scenario for torture. I respond to this one as I did the previous one: Keep it illegal and have a trial if the law is broken. If your exceedingly rare situation comes to pass the jury will be kindly disposed.
We need to be out of the rendition business, and instead elaborate on Hilzoy’s “perfectly normal things.” If another country asks us to watch for, track or arrest someone with an outstanding warrant, fine (provided we have an extradition agreement). We should announce when we capture someone under those circumstances as well as a time frame for transfer of control. There should be no need for cloak and dagger once the suspect is in custody. There is no reason, except the obvious and objectionable one, for the administration to pledge not to use it but still want it available. Further, this is not an issue where vigilance is effective – we will know about it, if at all, only long after it has been running.
“Trust us” shouldn’t fly anymore. We were rightly angered by it when the Bush administration used it and we should be careful not to use it now that a Democrat is in the White House. Darren Hutchinson points out that many objected to rendition during the Bush years on several grounds, including lack of judicial oversight and denial of counsel. The careful parsing of extraordinary vs. ordinary or terms like “rendition to torture” only came into the discussion when Obama became president. We need to drop that, or risk being justifiably accused of hypocrisy.
