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

[_JS]

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

If Ami has a problem then I believe he is fully capable of speaking for himself. I already apologized and as I said, I'm not one who has a problem admitting when I'm wrong.

As much as I enjoy semantics Sirs, I've got more useful things to do with my time than trying to answer your oxymoron.

[Amianthus]

Some of these prisoners have faced no criminal charges and have never been to see an American court room.

Rendition is seperate from extradition, and therefore does not require a visit to a court room. It's actually more akin to a government agency acting as a bail enforcer. We trade in these favors with other governments. Similar to the three way deal we have with Great Britain and Canada where they listen in on our internet traffic, and we listen in on theirs, then trade reports. It's not illegal for Canada and GB to monitor our citizens, and it's not illegal for the US to get a report on possible criminal activity from Canada or GB. And vice versa. It would be illegal for the US to monitor it's own citizens in this way, and ditto for the other countries, so they don't. Germany and France joined this group as well a few years ago.

Do you think one can abuse extraordinary rendition?

Anything can be abused. And I would hope that any abuse with adequate evidence would be prosecuted. We may get a case soon, Khalid El-Masri has filed against the US and several corporations.

[Amianthus]

As much as I enjoy semantics Sirs, I've got more useful things to do with my time than trying to answer your oxymoron.

While the question as stated was an oxymoron, it was a valid question. Should have been stated as "When did Ami imply it?"

More than likely, you came to that conclusion based on this post, though a close reading would see that I did not imply it then, either. I was just unclear that I was pointing out that the program had apparently been found to be legal at the time.

[sirs]

Posted by: _JS; "No, you didn't say it explicitly."  You answered as to the former, yet allowed the latter to carry your ball

....I already apologized....

Glad we got that subtle accusation out of the way then

[Brassmask]

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.

And therein lies the rub.

Padilla was held so long without recourse, he is now too insane to stand trial!  It's like he's Josef K!

[Lanya]

Look at Padilla's treatment compared to this Crocker  @$$&*($.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/18/tennessee_terrorist/index.html

[sirs]

So what's your beef?

The ground up sausage was the distorted translation of supporting efforts, many of them pefectly legal, in trying to fight the terrorist threat as analogus to claiming we need to lose more civil liberties in order to be more secure.