Obama Caves on Extraordinary Rendition

[disrupter]

Obama Caves on Extraordinary Rendition

In his attempts to be more Republican [the party that lost the last election heavily],

he has backtracked on civil liberties & righteous law & order & instead favors more
outlaw police state crimes.

Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool
The role of the CIA's controversial prisoner-transfer

program may expand,

intelligence experts say.
By Greg Miller
February 1, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently,
the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions,

secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures,
mistaken identities and allegations that
prisoners were turned over to countries where they
were tortured.

The European Parliament condemned renditions as "an illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a Boeing Co. subsidiary accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.

But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.

The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the United States is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."

One provision in one of Obama’s orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."

Despite concern about rendition, Obama's prohibition of many other counter-terrorism tools could prompt intelligence officers to resort more frequently to the "transitory" technique.

The decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human rights groups. Leaders of such organizations attribute that to a sense that nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.

"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."

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.

CIA veterans involved in renditions characterized the program as important but of limited intelligence-gathering use. It is used mainly for terrorism suspects not considered valuable enough for the CIA to keep, they said.

"The reason we did interrogations [ourselves] is because renditions for the most part weren't very productive," said a former senior CIA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

The most valuable intelligence on Al Qaeda came from prisoners who were in CIA custody and questioned by agency experts, the official said. Once prisoners were turned over to Egypt, Jordan or elsewhere, the agency had limited influence over how much intelligence was shared, how prisoners were treated and whether they were later released.

"In some ways, [rendition] is the worst option,"

the former official said. "If they are in U.S. hands, you have a lot of checks and balances, medics and lawyers. Once you turn them over to another service, you lose control."

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.

The CIA has long maintained that it does not turn prisoners over to other countries without first obtaining assurances that the detainees will not be mistreated.

In a 2007 speech, https:// www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2007/general-haydens-remarks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html "> www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2007/general-haydens-remarks-at-the-council-on-foreign-relations.html the agency had to make a determination in every case "that it is less, rather than more, likely that the individual will be tortured." He added that the CIA sought "true assurances" and that "we're not looking to shave this 49-51."

Even so, the rendition program became a target of fierce criticism during the Bush administration as a series of cases surfaced.

In one of the most notorious instances, a German citizen named Khaled Masri was arrested in Macedonia in 2003 and whisked away by the CIA to a secret prison in Afghanistan. He was quietly released in Albania five months later after the agency determined it had mistaken Masri for an associate of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Masri later described being abducted by "seven or eight men dressed in black and wearing black ski masks." He said he was stripped of his clothes, placed in a diaper and blindfolded before being taken aboard a plane in shackles -- an account that matches other descriptions of prisoners captured in the rendition program.

In another prominent case, an Egyptian cleric known as Abu Omar was abducted in Italy in 2003 and secretly flown to an Egyptian jail, where he said he was tortured. The incident became a major source of embarrassment to the CIA when Italian authorities, using cellphone records, identified agency operatives involved in the abduction and sought to prosecute them.

Defenders of the rendition program point out that it has been an effective tool since the early 1990s and was often used to bring terrorism suspects to courts in the United States. Among them was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who was captured in Pakistan and was convicted of helping orchestrate the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Because details on the rendition program are classified, the scale of the program has been a subject of wide-ranging speculation.

An exhaustive investigation by the European Union concluded that the CIA had operated more than 1,200 flights in European airspace after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The implication was that most were rendition-related, with some taking suspects to states where they faced torture.

But U.S. intelligence officials contend that the EU report greatly exaggerated the scale of the program and that most of the flights documented by the Europeans involved moving supplies and CIA personnel, not prisoners.

Instead, recent comments by Hayden suggest that the program has been used to move no more than a handful of prisoners in recent years and that the total is in the "midrange two figures" since the Sept. 11 attacks.
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story

His moral compass broke a mere week into his presidency.

Wow, i am glad i voted for Nader.

The American government is the terrorist,
using dirty, unethical, outlaw tactics for their political agendas.

Hard to call someone else a terrorist when your own nation is a terrorist state.

[Hog Trash]

His moral compass broke a mere week into his presidency.
"moral compass"??? :confused: Obama??? :disbelief: You've got to be joking. :laugh:

[kres24GT]

This is why people are stupid. To think things are really going to change when you elect the same thing over and over again, pure idiocy. As long as Dems and Repubs are in charge we can count on the following:

More government
More Spending
Fiscal Irresponsibility
Erosion of freedom
Violations of basic rights
Rich get richer
Poor stay poor
Education declines


These are givens, and there is no debate this is what you get with electing anyone form either party, to think otherwise is pure idiocy or stupidity. NO matter how many examples we see, people still ignore it. Sometimes admitting you were wrong can be really hard I guess.

[BlackAsCoal]

This is why people are stupid. To think things are really going to change when you elect the same thing over and over again, pure idiocy. As long as Dems and Repubs are in charge we can count on the following:

More government
More Spending
Fiscal Irresponsibility
Erosion of freedom
Violations of basic rights
Rich get richer
Poor stay poor
Education declines


These are givens, and there is no debate this is what you get with electing anyone form either party, to think otherwise is pure idiocy or stupidity. NO matter how many examples we see, people still ignore it. Sometimes admitting you were wrong can be really hard I guess.

No truer words were ever spoken.

Obambi caves .. get used to it because we'll be hearing it a lot.

[Hog Trash]

Regarding your signature...It is society which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."
-- Albert Einstein: Why Socialism Albert Einstein also tells us the dangers of Socialism, and why it has always failed in the past. {Below in red}
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
-- Albert Einstein: Why Socialism Did you notice Einstein offered no solution for this problem?...That's because there is none. There are many reasons why socialism is bad for people. It styfles creativity, ingenuity and competiveness which brings about progress, but the main reason socialism is dangerous is because the Marxist will promise you a better life, and once in power will take away everything you hold dear, mainly your freedom....Totalitarianism is the final result....Always!

Remember the pigs from Animal Farm?...."We are all equal, but some are more equal than others.".....Socialism gives to much power to government, making this inevitable.

[disrupter]

Corporate welfare is stealth socialism.

[Hog Trash]

Corporate welfare is stealth socialism.Corporate welfare is socialism, there's nothing "stealth" about it.

[BlackAsCoal]

Regarding your signature...Albert Einstein also tells us the dangers of Socialism, and why it has always failed in the past. {Below in red}
Did you notice Einstein offered no solution for this problem?...That's because there is none. There are many reasons why socialism is bad for people. It styfles creativity, ingenuity and competiveness which brings about progress, but the main reason socialism is dangerous is because the Marxist will promise you a better life, and once in power will take away everything you hold dear, mainly your freedom....Totalitarianism is the final result....Always!

Remember the pigs from Animal Farm?...."We are all equal, but some are more equal than others.".....Socialism gives to much power to government, making this inevitable.

Einstein offered no solution because even with as brilliant as he was, he didn't know everything and was unaware ot evolution of socialism.. which encoimpasses concepts beyond Marx and Lenin.

From my perspective, democratic socialism is that evolution. It's a belief that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not simply to make great profit for a few individuals.

Socialism has not always failed and it has improved the lives tremendously of Cubans and Venezuelans and many other nations.

The good news about socialism is that I don't have to convince anyone of its importance. Society will come to socialism.

Social Security is a bedrock of this nation, as is Medicare/Medicaid and socialism in all its forms in America.

I don't have to convince anyone of the need for nationalized healthcare .. and no matter what you call it, we're giving away trillions of dollars to the banking industry .. yet you don't own it, not in position to take any advantage of the fact that Americans are funneling money to banks, sometimes in excess of their worth. You can call that whatever you want. At least in socialist countries the population gets breaks from their nationalized industries.

Society will come to socialism, in spite of the kicking and screaming, because it works best in the interests of the whole, not individuals.

[Hog Trash]

Einstein offered no solution because even with as brilliant as he was, he didn't know everything and was unaware ot evolution of socialism.. which encoimpasses concepts beyond Marx and Lenin.

From my perspective, democratic socialism is that evolution. It's a belief that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not simply to make great profit for a few individuals.

Socialism has not always failed and it has improved the lives tremendously of Cubans and Venezuelans and many other nations.

The good news about socialism is that I don't have to convince anyone of its importance. Society will come to socialism.

Social Security is a bedrock of this nation, as is Medicare/Medicaid and socialism in all its forms in America.

I don't have to convince anyone of the need for nationalized healthcare .. and no matter what you call it, we're giving away trillions of dollars to the banking industry .. yet you don't own it, not in position to take any advantage of the fact that Americans are funneling money to banks, sometimes in excess of their worth. You can call that whatever you want. At least in socialist countries the population gets breaks from their nationalized industries.

Society will come to socialism, in spite of the kicking and screaming, because it works best in the interests of the whole, not individuals.Marxism and democracy can not coexist. If you don't believe this ask the Cubans and Venezuelans. Of course you will have to interview them secretly because they are no longer free to openly critisize their government. The governments of these nations now control all print and electronic news and media outlets. The people only hear what the government wants them to hear. They are at the mercy of tyrants. No election can free them, their only hope now is armed revolution and they are unarmed.

Don't you ever question why people risk their lives to flee to the US from Cuba? Or how about if you want to give up your US citizenship and move to Cuba from the US, nobody will stop you. You could freely move to Cuba or Venezuela if you want. If you desire Marxist government and control, no one in the US will stop you. I hear the weather is great there. Of course if you decide you don't like it, getting back out might not be as easy as entry was.

I don't actually think you want to go there. What you realy want is obvious. You are unable to compete in a capitalist system, and want a government that will supply all your needs. You are not alone in these inadequecies. Many see others doing well and are jealous that you must be smart and willing to work long hard hours to get to the high earning level of the successful class. They make their fortunes and pass it down to their children and this further infuriates the slackers. Slackers always have an excuse why they can't make it. The cards are always stacked against them for some reason or another.

Socialism is having a hard time taking root in America because we have successfully resisted the abolishment of the Second Amendment. It would be of no use to implement socialist oppression on people who still have the means for armed revolution. The left is sure if they keep hammering away they will eventualy disarm us and we will finally be ready to except their ultimatum. I believe it will happen also, mainly because people are getting more relaxed with their liberty. Three generations have been told that guns, not people kill, and their beginning to believe it. You won't but your children will probably get your wish of socialism and will be able to compete in a new world. Mainly because their will be no competition, and only the abilty to blindly follow orders will be required.

[SeedyROM]

I forget who it was but I got jumped for saying Hussein would keep Extraordinary Rendition as method to extract information. Bill Clinton and Al Gore will be proud of Obama. Its a good idea to keep it because we may need it in the heat of the moment.

Obama is showing his neocon fangs! The man is a puppet to the neocons!!

[SeedyROM]

From my perspective, democratic socialism is that evolution. It's a belief that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not simply to make great profit for a few individuals.

Socialism has not always failed and it has improved the lives tremendously of Cubans and Venezuelans and many other nations.

The good news about socialism is that I don't have to convince anyone of its importance. Society will come to socialism.

Social Security is a bedrock of this nation, as is Medicare/Medicaid and socialism in all its forms in America.

I don't have to convince anyone of the need for nationalized healthcare .. and no matter what you call it, we're giving away trillions of dollars to the banking industry .. yet you don't own it, not in position to take any advantage of the fact that Americans are funneling money to banks, sometimes in excess of their worth. You can call that whatever you want. At least in socialist countries the population gets breaks from their nationalized industries.

Society will come to socialism, in spite of the kicking and screaming, because it works best in the interests of the whole, not individuals.

Both parties are slowly integrating socialist policy, the law books and tax laws are full of socialist policy. The problem with socialism is that it reduces spendable incomes thru higher taxes. Venezuala is not a success when you consider disposable income is not as high as it would be if the country was a democracy or republic.

When government and industry consumes our lives we will have to give up far more than its worth just to make the rich richer. Which socialism has done in this country and it shall only get worse if socialism succeeds regardless of what they call it. We will end up with no middle class in the long run.

Nationalized healthcare should be designed only for the poor and lower middle class with an income cut off of $50k for couples and $30k for singles. The larger the group the greater the tax burden. Employers will not increase wages for those who get govt backed healthcare, employers will keep the difference. They will see profits go up and they will boost thier own salaries and as stock prices rise so will the pay difference between executives and workers.

All those idiots who want the European ways have no clue what they are asking for. Government is the end all solution for the USA. If this crap persists then I may as well become a lobbiest or a govt. contractor and take my share of the pie.

[bairdi]

Does the context of the Einstein quote change if one places the preceding paragraph into the quote?

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

[SeedyROM]

Does the context of the Einstein quote change if one places the preceding paragraph into the quote?
Yes, it improves the quote. :D

[SeedyROM]

Dis, Obama will also kidnap and take hostages too!!! Obama will not investigate torture ordered by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc........ Bush-lite has proven he is the opposite of what he campaigned for. He suckered the masses with lies. It's no wonder Obama met with Bush so many times, they have so much in common!!

Obama the Neocon has become Bush-Lite!!!

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/feb2009/rend-f03.shtml
Analysis of the executive orders US President Barack Obama signed on January 22 shows that the Untied States will continue to be heavily involved in illegal practices including kidnapping, secret detention and torture. The orders ostensibly ended torture and a network of secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) prison camps.

Obama is not only contemplating preserving rendition; he foresees using it more than the Bush administration. The Los Angeles Times cites unnamed US intelligence officials who say, "The rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism—aside from Predator missile strikes—for taking suspected terrorists off the street."

Meanwhile, Obama's order ostensibly shutting down the CIA's network of secret prisons allows This provision will allow the CIA's secret prison system to function more or less as it did in the Bush administration. While under the Bush administration prisoners could be held indefinitely in CIA-run black holes, in many cases the CIA prisons—many of which were located in eastern Europe—acted as way stations for prisoners who were to be shipped off to regimes where the abductees were subjected to torture.

Obama has not challenged the Bush administration's pseudo-legal claim that the president can, without judicial review, claim any individual—US citizen or not—an "enemy combatant," subject to secret arrest and indefinite detention. Nor has Obama undone the military tribunal system of kangaroo-court justice for those caught up in the US dragnet.

In relationship to the use of torture by the US military and the CIA, Obama left himself ample room for maneuver. While one order claimed to end forms of interrogation not sanctioned by the Army Field Manual, Obama has proposed the creation of a task force that would study ways of changing the Manual to allow for new forms of interrogation.

Even Obama's celebrated order ending of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay changes nothing. The current Guatánamo inmates, as well as future "detainees," may be subject to extraordinary rendition based on executive fiat.

Moreover, Obama has made assurances that his administration will not investigate or prosecute those officials—including former Bush administration officials such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Alberto Gonzales—who were responsible for the policies of torture and illegal detention.

The Obama administration is asking a San Francisco federal judge to throw out a case against former Justice Department official John Yoo, who penned the infamous torture memos for the Bush administration. The case has been brought by Jose Padilla, the US citizen who was held in a US naval brig and tortured for several years. The Justice Department is also seeking the dismissal of another Padilla-related case against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Insofar as the "war on terrorism" continues—and Obama has promised that it will—all the illegal practices bound up with it will continue as well. The war on terrorism is in fact the euphemism given to Washington's intensification of military violence abroad and attacks on democratic rights within the US, carried out in defense of the interests of American capitalism.

Obama's preservation of the criminal elements of the war on terrorism, albeit with somewhat different packaging, should come as no surprise. Torture, extraordinary rendition, military tribunals, secret prisons—these are in fact the consensus policies of the US ruling elite, defended by the Democratic Party as well as the Republicans. All these measures were communicated to, and approved by, leading Democrats in Congress during the Bush administration. The Democrats did nothing to reverse these policies after their sweeping victory in the congressional elections of 2006, and they will do no more now.

[BlackAsCoal]

Both parties are slowly integrating socialist policy, the law books and tax laws are full of socialist policy. The problem with socialism is that it reduces spendable incomes thru higher taxes. Venezuala is not a success when you consider disposable income is not as high as it would be if the country was a democracy or republic.

I appreciate your thoughts good brother, but life in Venezuela is exponentially better for average people than it was before Hugo Chavez.

Disposable income is not the only measure of quality of life. That's a concept that is very difficult for Americans to understand.

When government and industry consumes our lives we will have to give up far more than its worth just to make the rich richer. Which socialism has done in this country and it shall only get worse if socialism succeeds regardless of what they call it. We will end up with no middle class in the long run.

Social Security does not make the rich richer. Nor has it destroyed the middle class .. in fact, it is fast becoming the only safety net the middle class has as more Americans are losing or have lost pensions, 401ks, and stock holdings.

Socilaism is not about benefit to the rich by any stretch of the imagination, that's what capitialism is .. and look no further than your favorite news source right now for a clear and undeniable demonstration of that truth.

In fact, neither Castro or Chavez has taken advantage of socialism in thei countries to try to amass a personal fortune of their own. Ex-US politicians make more money than both of them .. put together. Wanna compare their wealth to Bill Clinton?

Nationalized healthcare should be designed only for the poor and lower middle class with an income cut off of $50k for couples and $30k for singles. The larger the group the greater the tax burden. Employers will not increase wages for those who get govt backed healthcare, employers will keep the difference. They will see profits go up and they will boost thier own salaries and as stock prices rise so will the pay difference between executives and workers.

Might that not be a good thing? Healthcare is one of the biggest costs of making a car and countries with nationalized healthcare makes cars cheaper. Addressing excecutive pay should be addressed, but that's a different subject.

All those idiots who want the European ways have no clue what they are asking for. Government is the end all solution for the USA. If this crap persists then I may as well become a lobbiest or a govt. contractor and take my share of the pie.

But my brother, are you not ignoring the collapse of all we thought was so ideal? Americans are hurting badly .. and if we had the courage and will of many citizens in other countries have, we'd be rioting in the streets.

The GIANT GAPING HOLE in the concept of democracy is MONEY. He who has it, owns the democracy. We are owned by Wall Street and the plutocrats.

We've long ago morphed from a democracy into a plutocracy.

Far too many Americans believe the threat of "our way of life" is some guy with a towel wrapped around his head thousands of miles from our shores .. when the reality is that the threat wears a Brooks Brothers suit and lives on Wall Street.

Intelligent society comes to socialism.

[BlackAsCoal]

Does the context of the Einstein quote change if one places the preceding paragraph into the quote?

It indeed does my brother.

[bairdi]

I appreciate your thoughts good brother, but life in Venezuela is exponentially better for average people than it was before Hugo Chavez.

Disposable income is not the only measure of quality of life. That's a concept that is very difficult for Americans to understand.



Social Security does not make the rich richer. Nor has it destroyed the middle class .. in fact, it is fast becoming the only safety net the middle class has as more Americans are losing or have lost pensions, 401ks, and stock holdings.

Socilaism is not about benefit to the rich by any stretch of the imagination, that's what capitialism is .. and look no further than your favorite news source right now for a clear and undeniable demonstration of that truth.

In fact, neither Castro or Chavez has taken advantage of socialism in thei countries to try to amass a personal fortune of their own. Ex-US politicians make more money than both of them .. put together. Wanna compare their wealth to Bill Clinton?



Might that not be a good thing? Healthcare is one of the biggest costs of making a car and countries with nationalized healthcare makes cars cheaper. Addressing excecutive pay should be addressed, but that's a different subject.



But my brother, are you not ignoring the collapse of all we thought was so ideal? Americans are hurting badly .. and if we had the courage and will of many citizens in other countries have, we'd be rioting in the streets.

The GIANT GAPING HOLE in the concept of democracy is MONEY. He who has it, owns the democracy. We are owned by Wall Street and the plutocrats.

We've long ago morphed from a democracy into a plutocracy.

Far too many Americans believe the threat of "our way of life" is some guy with a towel wrapped around his head thousands of miles from our shores .. when the reality is that the threat wears a Brooks Brothers suit and lives on Wall Street.

Intelligent society comes to socialism.
"The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy''.
Alex Carey

[BlackAsCoal]

"The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy''.
Alex Carey

Quite true, but even Thomas Jefferson thought freedom from corporations was a basic human right.

[Hog Trash]

Does the context of the Einstein quote change if one places the preceding paragraph into the quote?No....The fact that he follows the "preceding paragraph" with the final thought after "nevertheless" which tells us the final results. This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?Einstein explains it clearly that the conversion to socialism will bring about totalitarianism before transition to true socialism is complete,

mainly because total power must be turned over too government during the transition stage....Absolute power corrupts absolutely, without failure.

[bairdi]

No....The fact that he follows the "preceding paragraph" with the final thought after "nevertheless" tells us the final results. Einstein explains it clearly that the conversion to socialism will bring about totalitarianism before transition to true socialism is complete,

mainly because total power must be turned over too government during the transition stage....Absolute power corrupts absolutely, without failure.
It is pretty obvious to me that either 1) you didn't read the entire essay, or 2) you read it and did not comprehend what the man said.

[Hog Trash]

It is pretty obvious to me that either 1) you didn't read the entire essay, or 2) you read it and did not comprehend what the man said.Apparently one of us didn't understand.

[SeedyROM]

I appreciate your thoughts good brother, but life in Venezuela is exponentially better for average people than it was before Hugo Chavez.

Disposable income is not the only measure of quality of life. That's a concept that is very difficult for Americans to understand.

Social Security does not make the rich richer. Nor has it destroyed the middle class .. in fact, it is fast becoming the only safety net the middle class has as more Americans are losing or have lost pensions, 401ks, and stock holdings.

Socilaism is not about benefit to the rich by any stretch of the imagination, that's what capitialism is .. and look no further than your favorite news source right now for a clear and undeniable demonstration of that truth.

In fact, neither Castro or Chavez has taken advantage of socialism in thei countries to try to amass a personal fortune of their own. Ex-US politicians make more money than both of them .. put together. Wanna compare their wealth to Bill Clinton?

Might that not be a good thing? Healthcare is one of the biggest costs of making a car and countries with nationalized healthcare makes cars cheaper. Addressing excecutive pay should be addressed, but that's a different subject.

But my brother, are you not ignoring the collapse of all we thought was so ideal? Americans are hurting badly .. and if we had the courage and will of many citizens in other countries have, we'd be rioting in the streets.

The GIANT GAPING HOLE in the concept of democracy is MONEY. He who has it, owns the democracy. We are owned by Wall Street and the plutocrats.

We've long ago morphed from a democracy into a plutocracy.

Far too many Americans believe the threat of "our way of life" is some guy with a towel wrapped around his head thousands of miles from our shores .. when the reality is that the threat wears a Brooks Brothers suit and lives on Wall Street.

Intelligent society comes to socialism.

You my be right, the guy in the Brooks Brother is the enemy of all the people and his friends work in DC my brother. Healthcare for those in need, the rest can make it on thier on or cut back a little. I see socialism taking mor from those who want more money. The free services will hurt the needy in the long run under socialism because big government will have to consume thier incomes and rising prices will eat what little the people have. Socialism is expensive as is what the USA is going thru right now. The plutocrats think Keynesian is the solution and they will fail no matter how well they re-index GDP, the budget acounting methods and everything else they change to cover thier tracks. I'll have to look at Venezuela pre Chavez sometime.

[SeedyROM]

"The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy''.
Alex Carey

I've been preaching about the growth of corporate propaganda for a decade after reviewing the stock scandals of the 1992. 1999 going forward was even worse. Politicians in both parties have been suckered by propoganda so well they don't know whom or what to trust anymore. I thought political propoganda was bad, corporate propaganda is evil pure evil!!:mad:

[bairdi]

Well it looks like the LA Times and Seedy got punked.

LA Times 'Punked': Obama NOT Continuing Bush 'Extraordinary Rendition' Program

Scott Horton says paper conflated Dubya's program of kidnap, long-term foreign imprisonment and torture with older, less-nefarious anti-terror tool...

Posted By Brad Friedman On 2nd February 2009 @ 11:41 In CIA, War On Terror, Mainstream Media Failure, Barack Obama, Torture, Bush Legacy | 18 Comments

From Scott Horton at Harper's... [1]
In a breathless piece of reporting in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, [2] we are told that Barack Obama “left intact” a “controversial counter-terrorism tool” called renditions. Moreover, the Times states, quoting unnamed “current and former U.S. intelligence figures,” Obama may actually be planning to expand the program. The report notes the existence of a European Parliament report condemning the practice, but states “the Obama Administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.”

The Los Angeles Times just got punked.

Horton --- who testified as an expert witness for the European Parliament report mentioned --- says the paper conflated the controversial Bush program, which often included torture and long-term abduction into secret CIA-run prisons in foreign countries, and a significantly less nefarious type of rendition, in use since the early 90's, and perhaps even during the Reagan era.

He explains the difference between the pre-Dubya "renditions program", which an Executive Order from Obama [3] has not ended, versus Dubya's "extraordinary renditions program" which Obama has outlawed (despite media reports over the last several days to the contrary), thusly...

There are two fundamental distinctions between the 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. This practice is a felony under current U.S. law, but was made a centerpiece of Bush counterterrorism policy.

The earlier renditions program regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture.

We're shocked --- shocked --- that the rightwing Tribune Media's LA Times could have been so misleading and inaccurate. Bill O'Reilly tells us constantly how "liberal" they are, so this must be some kind of aberrant editing error, no doubt.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan has more [4] on how the Times got "rolled" by the Right. And Washington Monthly explains, in some detail, what Obama's Executive Order doesn't allow (despite the LA Times' irresponsible reporting to the contrary.)

Article printed from The BRAD BLOG: http://www.bradblog.com

URL to article: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6877

URLs in this post:
[1] From Scott Horton at Harper's...: http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326
[2] Sunday Los Angeles Times,: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,
0,1822531,full.story
[3] an Executive Order from Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/
[4] Andrew Sullivan has more: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/the-rendition-c.htm
l
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6877

[SeedyROM]

Well it looks like the LA Times and Seedy got punked.

]


Maybe, maybe not. If so, maybe perhaps maybe I got punked along with all the others including Disrupter. Funny how you leave out the thread originator. hehehehe

A woman on Larry King said renditions are still open according to her sources. Perhaps she has a source. The LA Times has a source. The BradBlog is just a blog, not a reliable source of news now is it? All the BB did was post a thread to the whitehouse release and talk jibberish.

Bear in mind the executive orders Obama signed were signed on January 22. The details written in the LA Times were released over a week later Bairdi. So did someone leak details? Don't be so quick to judge, remember the LA Times invested a lot of time, money and risk supporting Obama. The LA Times is doing its job and perhaps they just got themselves in the crosshairs of the FBI???

Do you think they'd make shit up just to burn him or would they report relevant facts from reliabe sources???? We'll see what develops, f the source is wrong the whitehouse will debunk it if not, then maybe they are re-working plans. They can wait till the next capture or reason to interrogate a Gitmo terorrist.

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools -- you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the legal reasoning. "The legal advisors working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."

One provision in one of Obama’s orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."


"If they are in U.S. hands, you have a lot of checks and balances, medics and lawyers. Once you turn them over to another service, you lose control."

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.

[bairdi]

Maybe, maybe not. If so, maybe perhaps maybe I got punked along with all the others including Disrupter. Funny how you leave out the thread originator. hehehehe


Oops. Sorry about that.

[SeedyROM]

Oops. Sorry about that.

K. We'll see how rendition plays in the future.

[disrupter]

Clarifying update:

Actually 'Extraordinary' renditions means CIA secret prisons & also possible torture there, & spiriting away prisoners to nations where it is intended/known they will be tortured.

Obama appears to have written an executive order stopping that.

BUT,

Rendition,
which means the expropriation of persons from inside other nations to imprison [i believe in military prison] or put them on trial is still in force.
It says the CIA can hold people temporarily, but that is a pretty wide open term, 'temporarily'.

There is also a Bush regime created addition to the
army field manual
on how to care for prisoners called
appendix M
[created in 2006] which outlines what is essentially torture techniques,

Which Obama doesn't appear to have explicitly eliminated.

stay tuned to see if Appendix M is or isn't eliminated.

[SeedyROM]

Clarifying update:

Actually 'Extraordinary' renditions means CIA secret prisons & also possible torture there, & spiriting away prisoners to nations where it is intended/known they will be tortured.

Obama appears to have written an executive order stopping that.

BUT,

Rendition,
which means the expropriation of persons from inside other nations to imprison [i believe in military prison] or put them on trial is still in force.
It says the CIA can hold people temporarily, but that is a pretty wide open term, 'temporarily'.

There is also a Bush regime created addition to the
army field manual
on how to care for prisoners called
appendix M
[created in 2006] which outlines what is essentially torture techniques,

Which Obama doesn't appear to have explicitly eliminated.

stay tuned to see if Appendix M is or isn't eliminated.

Bravo Dis, it looked like Bairdi "Punked" himself with blogomania!!:D