.
.

It's the freedom....
.
.
.

---

and Bush is telling the Europeans what?

---

Why have conservatives been silent about new evidence that the Bush administration sanctioned torture?

  Conservatives who praise President Bush's policies in the global war on terrorism often say that when it comes to the unprecedented demands of the conflict, the president's critics just don't "get it."

But lately, when it comes to the use of torture -- and a growing body of evidence that the Bush White House has sanctioned it by proxy in foreign countries (which has been illegal under U.S. law since 1998) -- most on the political right just don't discuss it.

---

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

Far too many people have forgotten that "ACTIONS SPEAK FAR LOUDER THAN WORDS"!!

---

>>"ACTIONS SPEAK FAR LOUDER THAN WORDS"!!

While many in this country seem to have forgotten that, a reading of the foreign press will aquaint one with the perspective that the whole world is not afflicted with that lack.

In following up on this rendition story, I ran across this.

The Bush administration is consistently pursueing a rarely used executive directive called the state-secrets privilege in attempts to stop court challenges to some of his policies....

Is he using this privilege to protect the nation or his own presidential power?

I have to say, if you read all the available reports, it's hard to distinguish.

The story of rendition and it's use by this administrtion is not a new story. It was reported on by the San Francisco Chronicle more than a year ago.

But some papers, notably, the New York Times, still 'somehow' don't report the whole story on these incidences and their backgrounds. Many 'news' organizations have yet to broach the subject at all.

If the right claims some moral high ground over everyone else, they and their supporter's silence on these issues is deafening.

---

> The Bush administration is consistently pursueing a rarely used executive
> directive called the state-secrets privilege in attempts to stop court
> challenges to some of his policies....
>
> Is he using this privilege to protect the nation or his own presidential
> power?


That's the same thing.

The Clinton's scandals showed the world our nation was vulnerable and that our President was negligent in his duties as a role model as well as leader, and that led to the worst attack ever on American soil.

The President IS human, but he is also the single most important representative of our country and how he wields his power plays a significant role in how the rest of the world views America. He can chase women and fight in places like Bosnia which serve no American interest, or persue terrorists and make the world a safer place. Reagan, Bush 1, clinton, Bush 2

Besides, it sounds perfectly legal. You know, we wouldn't have voted for the man if we didn't trust him.

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

>>"ACTIONS SPEAK FAR LOUDER THAN WORDS"!!

While many in this country seem to have forgotten that, a reading of the
foreign press will aquaint one with the perspective that the whole world is
not afflicted with that lack.

In following up on this rendition story, I ran across this.

The Bush administration is consistently pursueing a rarely used executive
directive called the state-secrets privilege in attempts to stop court
challenges to some of his policies....

Is he using this privilege to protect the nation or his own presidential
power?

(I should have added here, that one should read the material provided before answering with some totally unrelated and disingenuous twaddle which will only demonstrate their own strange compulsive knack for replying to any question by expressing their personal problems with 'Clenis' envy, .... as if that was pertinent to anything much at all.)

I have to say, if you read all the available reports, it's hard to
distinguish where the nation's interests are served in this manner.

The story of rendition and it's use by this administrtion is not a new story.
It was reported on by the San Francisco Chronicle more than a
year ago.

But some papers, notably, the New York Times, still 'somehow' don't report the
whole story on these incidences and their backgrounds. Many 'news'
organizations have yet to broach the subject at all.

If the right claims some moral high ground over everyone else, they and their
supporter's silence on these issues is deafening.

---

The rights of the individual do not outweight the safty concerns for the public at large, especially when the individual is a foreigner.


.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

> The rights of the individual do not outweight the safty concerns for the
> public at large

It seems that is reserved for private companies, this was in the Government Executive.

"The Homeland Security Department would like to give private aviation-screening companies limited liability protection if screeners fail to prevent a terrorist attack.

David Stone, assistant secretary of the department's Transportation Security Administration (TSA), told Congress last week that the agency would submit a recommendation on the issue within the next 30 days to the science and technology division."

---

Documentation released from the military is available here.

Actions that are speaking much louder than words tell a much different story than the words that have been bandied about.

---

Imagine the uproar if a former U.S. Marine traveled to Europe and suddenly disappeared.

Weeks, months or years later, it turns out, he had been abducted and spirited away to a hostile country, where he had been held in secret detention and tortured, because of suspicions by his kidnappers that he had committed unspecified crimes during his service in Iraq.

That is the nightmarish scenario the Bush administration is inviting with its use of a secret tool to combat terrorism known as "extraordinary rendition. "

---

The problem with imagination is that it's often worse than reality.

1) The guy in the article is not American nor does he even live in this country and is therefore not entitled to American rights and notions like "innocent untilproven guilty"

2) There is no proof that he was tortured other than his own words.

3) The threat posed by stateless terrorists who draw no distinction between military and civilian targets is so dire that it requires tough new rules of engagement. This shift in perspective, labelled the New Paradigm in a memo written by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, “places a high premium on . . . the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians,” giving less weight to the rights of suspects. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

All of which conveniently fails to take into account the fact that many of these vicitms of rendition have been found not to be aligned with any terrorist threat or group and that they've been eventually cleared and released.

No matter what the view of Gonzales or Bush, we are supposed to be a country that is ruled by law. To arbitrarily suspend the rule of law for ideological opinions contrary to that ideal has and will be found to be illegal, not to mention unethical.

As the challenges to these arbitrary suspensions of law play out, the courts are finding against the administration's beliefs that they are above the law.

The Geneva protections are there to safeguard our own from the same types of atrocities, when we ignore them, we have no right to be outraged when other countries start treating our troops or our citizens the same way.

---

> All of which conveniently fails to take into account the fact that many of
> these vicitms of rendition have been found not to be aligned with any
> terrorist threat or group and that they've been eventually cleared and
> released.

So what? Every person killed in a terrorist attack was also innocent. Except they weren't given the chance to prove their innocence and be cleared of the charges they were put to death over.

> No matter what the view of Gonzales or Bush, we are supposed to be a country
> that is ruled by law. To arbitrarily suspend the rule of law for ideological
> opinions contrary to that ideal has and will be found to be illegal, not to
> mention unethical.

Nothing illegal about letting other countries interrogate suspected terrorists, and I have to laugh in your face when you bring up ethics in a discussion concerning suicide bombers. I don't care about hurting his feelings, I care about saving lives. Remember, alleged bruises heal, death is permanent.

> As the challenges to these arbitrary suspensions of law play out, the courts
> are finding against the administration's beliefs that they are above the law.

I guess you missed the whole part about the guy NOT being American and therefore not subject to the protection of our laws.

> The Geneva protections are there to safeguard our own from the same types of
> atrocities, when we ignore them, we have no right to be outraged when other
> countries start treating our troops or our citizens the same way.

LAF

Last time I checked, the military was still comprised of 100% volunteers. Don't join if you don't want to fight in another country......how simple is that?

BTW, what is Geneva doing for the civilians being kidnapped and decapitated in Iraq? Not a d**n thing!!!

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

rendition is not illegal..... ?

someone hasn't been reading the material....

---

> rendition is not illegal..... ?
>
> someone hasn't been reading the material....

You're right, I don't read alot of your propaganda, maybe you should try reading something that doesn't suck

Definitions of rendition on the Web:

* the pattern in which strains are arranged within a particular performance of a tune. Most, but not all, strains in this collection are repeated, and there may be variation from performance to performance in whether a strain is repeated. In the Musical Features section of the bibliographic record for each tune, the strains are numbered (1, 2, etc.), and "r" indicates that the strain is repeated. A rendition described as 1r-2r-1r indicates that the tune is composed of two strains, and that Henry Reed played the first strain twice, followed by the second strain twice, followed by the first strain twice.
memory.loc.gov/ammem/hrhtml/hrgloss.html

* An duplicate copy of a document or image, using different format or tecnology
www.documentmanagement.org.uk/pages/glossary.htm

* Rendering is the processing and manipulation of information in order to represent it, for instance, on screen or on paper. Not to be confused with conversion. Rendering is, for instance, carried out by a Web browser in order to display an HTML file on screen. Conversion or formatting refers to the preparation of a file so that the browser can display it.
www.factory3x5.com/more_info/glossary.xml

* a performance of a musical composition or a dramatic role etc.; "they heard a live rendition of three pieces by Schubert"
* interpretation: an explanation of something that is not immediately obvious; "the edict was subject to many interpretations"; "he annoyed us with his interpreting of parables"; "often imitations are extended to provide a more accurate rendition of the child's intended meaning"
* the act of interpreting something as expressed in an artistic performance; "her rendition of Milton's verse was extraordinarily moving"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

propaganda?

propaganda?

---

Well, since I didn't stutter, I can only conclude that you really are that stupid.

Quote from the first paragraph of your second link.

Extraordinary rendition" sounds like a phrase from Gilbert and Sullivan or Charles Dickens. But it is a controversial legal concept that is moving quickly to the front-burner of the legal and political world.

I just love it when some dumbass proves my point for me!!

.

---

<a href="http://www.brainsmashr.com"><img src="http://www.brainsmashr.com/signature.gif"><img src="http://brainsmashr.com/boinc/counter_big.php?id=305369&amp;project=seti&amp;ctx=white&amp;cva=red&amp;cbo=white&amp;cbg=black&amp;linethickness=2"></a>

a 1998 law that seems to prohibit the practice.

the CIA's change of tack is motivated by increasingly shaky legal support

especially in the wake of the two terror-case rulings last June by the United States Supreme Court which recognized certain due process rights for detainees.

Those landmark rulings – in which the justices famously told the president that "a state of war is not a blank check" – have spawned several lower court rulings that slowly but surely are stemming executive branch control over terror suspects.

There is precious little case law on the issue and none since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Moreover, as Mayer points out, there is a federal law that states that it is "the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States."

And then there is the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has a slightly different definition for when a "rendition" becomes illegal.

_____________________________________________

Selective reading for only what one wants to see demonstrates a certain lack of comprehension of reality.

Insisting that a single opinion from one hack newspaper lawyer that any 'concept' is the unassailable truth of any matter shows a certain immaturity.

Ignoring all reality in the face of one's inability to process any information which does not support one's preconcieved notions demonstrates an imbalance not likely to be acknowledged.

But that wouldn't be anything new for one whose brain is mushed.

---