For those who said "It won't happen here."

[_JS]

What has been the usual appeals procedure for Prisoners of War?

They aren't considered, nor treated like prisoners of war.

So, you're trying to say that the Clinton Administration went to all the trouble to set up the extraordinary rendition program, and then they didn't bother to use it? I find that rather hard to believe.

When and where did they use it?

[Amianthus]

So, you're trying to say that the Clinton Administration went to all the trouble to set up the extraordinary rendition program, and then they didn't bother to use it? I find that rather hard to believe.

When and where did they use it?

Here's a couple instances noted in the New Yorker magazine, I'm sure there were many others:

In 1995, Scheuer said, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. “What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,” Scheuer said. “It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.” Technically, U.S. law requires the C.I.A. to seek “assurances” from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was “not sure” if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed.

A series of spectacular covert operations followed from this secret pact. On September 13, 1995, U.S. agents helped kidnap Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt’s most wanted terrorists, in Croatia. Qassem had fled to Europe after being linked by Egypt to the assassination of Sadat; he had been sentenced to death in absentia. Croatian police seized Qassem in Zagreb and handed him over to U.S. agents, who interrogated him aboard a ship cruising the Adriatic Sea and then took him back to Egypt. Once there, Qassem disappeared. There is no record that he was put on trial. Hossam el-Hamalawy, an Egyptian journalist who covers human-rights issues, said, “We believe he was executed.”

A more elaborate operation was staged in Tirana, Albania, in the summer of 1998. According to the Wall Street Journal, the C.I.A. provided the Albanian intelligence service with equipment to wiretap the phones of suspected Muslim militants. Tapes of the conversations were translated into English, and U.S. agents discovered that they contained lengthy discussions with Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy. The U.S. pressured Egypt for assistance; in June, Egypt issued an arrest warrant for Shawki Salama Attiya, one of the militants. Over the next few months, according to the Journal, Albanian security forces, working with U.S. agents, killed one suspect and captured Attiya and four others. These men were bound, blindfolded, and taken to an abandoned airbase, then flown by jet to Cairo for interrogation. Attiya later alleged that he suffered electrical shocks to his genitals, was hung from his limbs, and was kept in a cell in filthy water up to his knees. Two other suspects, who had been sentenced to death in absentia, were hanged.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6?050214fa_fact6

So, does thinking that Clinton set up the program then didn't bother to use it, make you gullible?

[Amianthus]

When and where did they use it?

Oh yeah, I really like the "make a claim (Clinton didn't use the program) then require others to prove you wrong."

[Xavier_Onassis]

What has been the usual appeals procedure for Prisoners of War?
===============================================
There is no appeal process, normally.

Prisoners of War are held until the war is over. They are returned according to the terms of the peace treaty.

The detainees are not considered POWs because they are not troops of any government that will sign any peace treaty, or at least that's what they say.

[_JS]

Oh yeah, I really like the "make a claim (Clinton didn't use the program) then require others to prove you wrong."

I like the "so Clinton created it, Bush is clean and innocent" argument.

[Amianthus]

I like the "so Clinton created it, Bush is clean and innocent" argument.

You don't need to like it, since I didn't use it.

[_JS]

Right.

[Amianthus]

Right.

Sarcasm?

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that?

[sirs]

Right.

Sarcasm?

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I said that?

Or even implied it.  Here's a hint.  He won't

[_JS]

No, you didn't say it explicitly.

It is too bad more people didn't oppose these things when they were implemented. I appreciate being corrected, by the way. I have no problem with saying I was wrong.

And just because something is legal does not make it moral, just as something that is illegal isn't necessarily immoral.

[sirs]

No, you didn't say it explicitly.

When/where did Ami ever say so implicitly?

[_JS]

When/where did Ami ever say so implicitly?

Do you realize your question is an oxymoron?

[Amianthus]

And just because something is legal does not make it moral, just as something that is illegal isn't necessarily immoral.

Oh, I agree.

However, I said rather clearly, that I opposed rendition during the Clinton administration as well. I only pointed out that it was found to be legal during those years, so the current claim of illegality is incorrect. The only time that rendition performed by the US is illegal is when the US knows ahead of time that a prisoner will be tortured.

You do realize that Ramzi Youssef was brought to the US to stand trial via rendition, right? And that "Carlos the Jackal" was brought to France to stand trial via rendition as well?

In the case against the Jackal, he even made an appeal to the European Commission of Human Rights that his rendition from Sudan was illegal, which was rejected.

[sirs]

Do you realize your question is an oxymoron?

Do you realize you didn't answer the question?

explicit - fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied
implicit - implied, rather than expressly stated, potentially contained

Posted by: _JS; "No, you didn't say it explicitly."

You answered as to the former, yet allowed the latter to carry your ball

[_JS]

However, I said rather clearly, that I opposed rendition during the Clinton administration as well. I only pointed out that it was found to be legal during those years, so the current claim of illegality is incorrect. The only time that rendition performed by the US is illegal is when the US knows ahead of time that a prisoner will be tortured.

You do realize that Ramzi Youssef was brought to the US to stand trial via rendition, right? And that "Carlos the Jackal" was brought to France to stand trial via rendition as well?

In the case against the Jackal, he even made an appeal to the European Commission of Human Rights that his rendition from Sudan was illegal, which was rejected.

My apologies then. I know better than to make assumptions, as often I tend to get lumped in as an anti-Bush leftist nutter when that isn't necessarily the case.

I believe that torture (and the definition thereof) as well as detention of foreigners with no charges or legal counsel is a significant problem. Rendition includes extradition and deportation. What makes Bush's extraordinary rendition (or extraordinary rendition carried out under this administration) somewhat unique is that some of the prisoners have been detained and then delivered to a third-party state (the CIA prisons) without ever touching US soil. Ramzi Youssef and Carlos faced criminal charges in specific countries. Some of these prisoners have faced no criminal charges and have never been to see an American court room.

Isn't that a distinction worth noting? Do you think one can abuse extraordinary rendition?