![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogPRODUCTION NOTE: This post is political and therefore no fun, so you might want to skip it. I’ll try to switch back to campy movie posters, burlesque cheesecake and MRI porn momentarily.
ITEM: The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured.
Uh huh. Well, that’s okay then. Except that I don’t think the problem with secret renditions was lack of oversight so much as the fact that they were happening in the first place.
And okay, sure, at least we won’t be renditioning them to Gitmo or secret CIA prisons (that we know of). So I probably should see this as progress of some kind.
On the other hand, there’s kind of a pattern emerging here. Obama got where he is in part by promising to put an end to the Bush Posse’s selective disregard for rule of law and civil liberties in the GWOT. And yet he seems to have a habit of replacing Bush/Cheney’s hardcore policies with kinder, fluffier versions of more or less the same thing. Glenn Greenwald has been collecting them, and you can read about them here, but Obama’s idea for an Indefinite Preventive Detention program – which he proposed in May as a way to legally arrest people without charging them on the pretense that they are likely to commit a crime – is a classic example and a definite eye-raiser worthy of special attention.
So you’ll excuse me if I’m not so reassured that his New Improved Rendition policy won’t result in suspects getting tortured – especially when the Obama admin outright refused to consider prosecuting US officials for documented acts of torture, and only grudgingly decided to look into busting a few low-level flacks after details emerged illustrating that the “spirited interrogation” involved a little more than just making them stay up late and pouring a little water on them.
Not that I’m arguing that Obama advocates torture. He did issue an executive order expressly banning its use – by US officials. And while renditioning suspects to Syria is a way around that, he is promising to closely monitor their treatment to ensure they’re not abused. The real question is, what will he do if monitoring and the usual diplomatic assurances fail to prevent it?
It’s worth adding that I am trying to keep in mind that Obama’s been on the job less than nine months. And better him than McCain/Palin. Still, when it comes to civil liberties, I’m wary of endorsing watered-down/rebranded change on the premise that it’s better than none at all. It’s not. We can do better than this, and we're running out of good excuses to fall short.
Get in the van,
This is dF
ITEM: The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured.
Uh huh. Well, that’s okay then. Except that I don’t think the problem with secret renditions was lack of oversight so much as the fact that they were happening in the first place.
And okay, sure, at least we won’t be renditioning them to Gitmo or secret CIA prisons (that we know of). So I probably should see this as progress of some kind.
On the other hand, there’s kind of a pattern emerging here. Obama got where he is in part by promising to put an end to the Bush Posse’s selective disregard for rule of law and civil liberties in the GWOT. And yet he seems to have a habit of replacing Bush/Cheney’s hardcore policies with kinder, fluffier versions of more or less the same thing. Glenn Greenwald has been collecting them, and you can read about them here, but Obama’s idea for an Indefinite Preventive Detention program – which he proposed in May as a way to legally arrest people without charging them on the pretense that they are likely to commit a crime – is a classic example and a definite eye-raiser worthy of special attention.
So you’ll excuse me if I’m not so reassured that his New Improved Rendition policy won’t result in suspects getting tortured – especially when the Obama admin outright refused to consider prosecuting US officials for documented acts of torture, and only grudgingly decided to look into busting a few low-level flacks after details emerged illustrating that the “spirited interrogation” involved a little more than just making them stay up late and pouring a little water on them.
Not that I’m arguing that Obama advocates torture. He did issue an executive order expressly banning its use – by US officials. And while renditioning suspects to Syria is a way around that, he is promising to closely monitor their treatment to ensure they’re not abused. The real question is, what will he do if monitoring and the usual diplomatic assurances fail to prevent it?
It’s worth adding that I am trying to keep in mind that Obama’s been on the job less than nine months. And better him than McCain/Palin. Still, when it comes to civil liberties, I’m wary of endorsing watered-down/rebranded change on the premise that it’s better than none at all. It’s not. We can do better than this, and we're running out of good excuses to fall short.
Get in the van,
This is dF
