Why Rendition?

Two front-page New York Times (August 25, 2009) stories appeared concerning our treatment of alleged terrorists and past practices of torture. First, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the naming of a special prosecutor to investigate the long-ignored, long-suppressed, and now much redacted Inspector General's report of the Central Intelligence Agency's physical and mental abuses of detainees. (May we say, "torture?")

The news emphasized the attorney general's agreement with the president's oft-repeated insistence that he was unwilling to investigate and prosecute past misdeeds that occurred under the previous administration. But Holder stated he was compelled to "follow the law" and appoint a prosecutor. Attorneys general are not noted for their courage in acting contrary to the president's wishes. Perhaps Holder is signaling that the president wants us to know that his heart is in the right place.

But more consistent with President Obama's zigs and zags of late, the Times's second story reported that the administration will maintain the Bush-Cheney policy of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation. The Times quickly added the administration's press release, stating its pledge "to closely monitor their treatment to ensure they are not tortured." Apparently, the FBI will do the monitoring -- which should be interesting.

The qualification of monitoring is at odds with the president's statement in 2007, just after he announced his candidacy for president. We must, he then insisted, "end the practice of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off counties, ... [and] of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law." Several months ago, the president announced that the secret network of CIA-run prisons would end, but the news now is to continue the harsh interrogations in foreign-run prisons. A distinction with no difference.

Common sense is in order here: why bother with the time and expense of dispatching suspects to third countries for further interrogation -- if not because we prefer that others dirty their hands, and not our folks. If they are going to be properly questioned, why not in the United States? What will we monitor abroad -- Syrians serving coffee to their prisoners, or Egyptians serving tea? Must we continue to use unemployed eastern European secret police from the Communist past to facilitate our interrogations?

The administration's obvious contradiction probably will be ignored by reporters covering the White House or the Department of Justice. Will they dare ask such questions in the face of their imagined fears of losing "access?" The president should be challenged. His campaign words on torture are empty, rendered meaningless with his "new" policy on rendition.

Stanley Kutler is the author of The Wars of Watergate and other writings.

Comments

[Non Sibi]

I read with sadness the bizarre rationalization of the cleaned-up extraordinary rendition policy. It put me in mind of the phrase, "You can't be a little bit pregnant."

[serena1313]

Because he taught and practiced constitutional law, supported human rights, etc... I really believed Obama would veer far away from the Bush agenda. Nothing indicated differently. Apparently Obama changed his mind and decided continuing some of the previous administration policies, in a slightly revised form, is a good idea. It 's not. While Obama rightfully earned the benefit of the doubt, he is squandering it by adopting policies the public already rejected.

Kidnapping a person because s/he is 'suspected' of something is unacceptable. Rendering them to foreign countries is unacceptable. Torturing someone to get information they may or may not have is unacceptable. Even if the prisoners are monitored that does not guarantee anything.

Needless to say, given Obama's intellect and ability to see all sides, it is disconcerting that he is reverting to the abusive tactics used by the previous administration.

With the rendition programme ripe for abuse, no president, republican or democratic, now or in the future, should have that much authourity or power.

"Trust us" did not fly under Bush and it doesn't fly now.

[Billy Hell]

Thanks for talking about these inconsistencies of the Obama administration Professor Kutler. There are many others not related to torture. While being a strong supporter of the President, I think one owes it him to point out faults and failures, kinda like a friend tells a friend his zipper is down to spare him embarrassment.

One cannot but wonder at the rationale behind maintaining so many Bush policies and how much of that is to do with "Continuity of Government". Defense, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security and the EPA are other portfolios riddled with actions out of keeping with campaign speak.

The fact is the Democratic Party is centrist on many policies, and so closer to Republican thinking on many issues than one cares to admit. Regrettably it sometimes appears almost as a vindication of some Bush actions that were so heavily criticized by Democrat voters.