Can the current policy of 'extraordinary rendition' be defended in any way?

Innocent people have been caught up in this web
of evil and have been tortured. A German, and a Canadian are now attempting to sue the US government because of their illegal capture, transportation and torture. Will these lawsuits now hinder the release and return of others who are innocent, and who have been mistakenly indentified as 'terrorists' ?

And for those who are not so innocent?
Does the end really justify the means ?
Or does the end become even more impossible to achieve because of the means?

I believe Americans have proven their willingness to protect their nation, and to protect others who are in jeopardy because of various evils.
But 'extraordinary rendition' is an abuse of all that the US and her people stand for. And that is a true loss to the world.

[ December 20, 2005, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: norma ]

The Inspector General's Act was established in 1978 specifically to limit powers of the executive branch, following the abuses of Watergate. The law does allow the president to exercise executive privilege, but he has to do it with the knowledge and sanction of Congress and the judiciary, the other two branches of government, in accordance with the Constitutional principle of checks and balances.

Pres. Bush could've done exactly what he did (i.e., order wiretapping) but following the 1978 law, and gone ahead and wiretapped. He probably would've been granted persmission by the other two branches of govt. considering the tenor of the times.

Let's face it -- the job of the National Security Agency (the secretive NSA -- and as it's fondly called by its employees "No Such Agency" -- ha!) is to wiretap. It's nothing new.

But Bush didn't do it that way. In other words, he disobeyed the law. This is the problem.

The other problem is that too many Americans don't understand the U.S. Constitution!!!! Didn't we learn in 7th grade about "checks and balances" that are supposed to prevent any one branch of government to overstep its boundaries?

The USA believes in the rule of law. Historically, we are supposed to be the ones that urge others around the world to establish laws and then to follow them. Dictators (like Saddam Hussein) don't have to follow laws. But in the United States, NO person (President included) is above the law. Because of this principle, just a few years ago we impeached President Clinton for lying under oath. 30 years ago we nearly impeached a President for breaking the law. But he quit before that could happen, and then was pardoned.

One thought about the problem of not understanding history: When we entered the war, President Bush reportedly didn't know there was a difference among Kurd, Sunni and Shiite in Iraq. Now he does.

DJ... did George W Bush also sign PNAC ? It is my understanding that his father and brother Jeb did. If he didn't, is it possible that he was used to set the thing in motion?

[ December 20, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: norma ]

I don't know if he's a member, but definitely the rest of the administration is. Did they use him to further their plans? It does look that way. There are a few books about it, which I haven't read. But I heard the author of "Rise of the Vulcans" on the radio. This is about the Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

It's difficult to get away from fear once you feel it in your bones. We all realized, after 9/11, that the orderliness of our world was shaken. What we thought was predictable, wasn't. My step-daughter would have been in the towers, but she was ill and didn't take the train into New York. A friend who worked for Cantor-Fitzgerald had to pick up a prescription and is still alive. Another friend walked down 60 flights of stairs and survived.
We know that fear. We saw it televised over and over again. It's in our bones now. Like Louisa, we treasure what we have and we want to protect it. And many of us look to the powerful, or those who appear powerful, to protect us from the horrors that have no reason.
The only problem is that power is seductive. Even with the best intentions, it's difficult not to want to do things the way we think is right and ignore the rules because they get in the way.
And the desire to be protected by a strong man is also seductive. Heck, it's the fairy tale we all grew up with. The problem is, and most of us have realized this in our personal lives, is that no one is infallable. We all have blind spots.
We need to support each other with questions and acknowledgement. So I can easily acknowledge Mr. Bush for taking a strong stand after 9/11. The country needed someone to look to for strength and he provided it. But, I must also, as a good citizen, question the decisions he has made that go against the law, at least the spirit of the law as we know it.
I believe that calling for impeachment is too extreme right now. We don't know all the facts. We need the inquiry and to establish where the boundary was crossed. If we learned anything from the impeachment trials of Mr. Clinton, it is what a huge amount of money and time it takes to do that.
However, I am not willing to give up my liberty for a false sense of security, no matter how large my fear may be.

I find it so strange that the same president who is so forceful that we are putting American military lives on the line in Iraq to give them freedom and democracy and rights is equally forceful that he can do what he wants to take away our rights in violation of our laws and the constitution.

I agree! I don't know why he gets away with what he does. We should get out of Iraq, and tap his phone! I didn't vote for him. Now we have to suffer with him. Interest rates are going up which will hurt the economy even more.

A democracy is just that. We vote for who we want and then accept the person who wins. It's a messy system at best, but it is good. I had friends who were of the Republican persuasion who were very upset with Clinton because they didn't agree with him either.
Pattyann, you are right. Mr. Bush is "forceful." He is consistently that way. His worldview is one of a hierarchy with a strong leader at the top who knows what's best. He believes in his view and acts on it.
The answer is to really get to know, understand and have discussions with those who voted for Mr. Bush. And, of course, to vote every time and every where.

I'm not "upset" with Mr Bush I think he is violating the law. People voted for him for president- a president sworn to uphold the constitution- no one voted him dictator
Do you realize that anyone who calls or emails overseas can have their messages intercepted- heck we've got Canadians here-BWS on tap-
And who decides where this info goes? If you complain about taxes- does the IRS get it? Does the Fbi get files on people who protest the war in conversations?
Ours is a system that has rules- if it is so vital take it to court

In attempting to obtain information from 'terrorists suspects' the current US administration has also given approval to the secret transportation of people to undisclosed places, where foreign police/intelligent agencies 'question' them. No legal extradition proceedings take place.

That is 'extraordinary rendition'.

It involves no form of protection
for the accused and it involves torture.

After criminals carried out the 9/11 attack,
it was rightly said that democracy was under attack. Unfortunatedly there are many ways to destroy democracy......

[ December 21, 2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: norma ]