Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Rendition


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Rendition Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Rendition - 10/24/2007 9:54:11 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		...is the practise of rendition an abdication of moral responsibility or a sensible tactic? What happens if/when the renditionee turns out to be innocent? Should the US take responsibility?
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 10:27:06 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline 		While prosecuting a just war, how far should a given entity go in order to be perfectly politically correct, or to avoid harming innocents in any way.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 10:42:30 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

While prosecuting a just war, how far should a given entity go in order to be perfectly politically correct, or to avoid harming innocents in any way.


.....seems to me the key word there is 'just'. It implies that at least one side holds the concept of justice in high regard. The harming of innocents is sometimes regretably unavoidable, however the responsibility for the harming of those innocents is a 'just' responsibility of those who harm them.
We have reasonable evidence that, in at least one case, an innocent was transported to Syria and tortured at the behest of US intelliegence. Should not the US take responsibility for that act? Apologise at the very least?
If, in a civilised country, someone is wrongly imprisoned then that country owes them compensation. Shouldn't the US admit a mistake and act accordingly? Or should they pretend otherwise in order to save face?
Oh, and i see nothing pc about considering torture an abomination. Once you start suggesting that all human rights are merely pc posturing then it seems to me that you are abdicating any pretence to be prosecuting a 'just' war.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 10:56:34 AM   
Zensee


Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

While prosecuting a just war, how far should a given entity go in order to be perfectly politically correct, or to avoid harming innocents in any way.


Good question but irrelevant.

Perhaps you meant 'when prosecuting an illegal, undeclared war, against an invisible enemy, justified by bogus intelligence, designed to be unwinable so as to pour the desperately needed wealth of the country into the bottomless pockets of your political cronies, while suppressing the freedom of the people of your own nation, denying them the very rights for which the war is supposedly being fought, while consuming thousands of their best and brightest sons and daughters and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in a foreign land, completely unconnected to your groundless excuses for waging unilateral, extra-national aggression - how much torture, murder, flaunting of the law, lies and inhumanity can you get away with?

The answer, apparently, years and years of it.


Z.

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 11:33:06 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		I don't understand why some people think that in a war you have to "fight nicely."
We have to treat their people kindly but they can behead our people?
Oh! But we're supposed to be "better" than them, right?
"Better" doesn't win wars.
But, there's always the possiblity of that, "one innocent person" right?
That's fine when you're dealing with capital punishment but it's not fine in war.
I think this is what is confusing people, some people seem to think that this is a legal matter for the courts when it is purely a military matter out of the expertise of the legal system.
Courts don't fight wars nor were they ever intended to.
If that were so then why didn't the courts take out a restraining order against Hitler and the Nazis? lol
War is savagry. And the side that is more savage than the other wins.
If we take Bin Laden alive I certainly wouldn't want to see him in any type of legal setting.
I'd want to see our Troops pummeling the living shit out of him!
Then burn him at the stake very slowly on a spit for hours like they did in the Inquisitions of Tomas De Toqemada covered in pigskins so that the pig grease boils him.
And that goes for any other al qeada member too.
Or better yet do like the Boston comedian Jimmy Tingle said; "Lower him down into the bleachers at Fenway Park from a long rope from a helocopter.
"In a Yankees jersey."
"On free bat day."

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to Zensee)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 12:29:55 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
.....seems to me the key word there is 'just'. It implies that at least one side holds the concept of justice in high regard. The harming of innocents is sometimes regretably unavoidable, however the responsibility for the harming of those innocents is a 'just' responsibility of those who harm them.
We have reasonable evidence that, in at least one case, an innocent was transported to Syria and tortured at the behest of US intelliegence. Should not the US take responsibility for that act? Apologise at the very least?
If, in a civilised country, someone is wrongly imprisoned then that country owes them compensation. Shouldn't the US admit a mistake and act accordingly? Or should they pretend otherwise in order to save face?
Oh, and i see nothing pc about considering torture an abomination. Once you start suggesting that all human rights are merely pc posturing then it seems to me that you are abdicating any pretence to be prosecuting a 'just' war.


Is "holding justice in high regard" the same as "suicide"? Or is it different.

In other words, since any modern war is won or lost through propaganda battles more than anything else, any such admission would be used to help defeat a given power - wouldn't it.

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 1:12:41 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Is "holding justice in high regard" the same as "suicide"? Or is it different.


...it is entirely different. You brought up the idea that this is a just war. By the logic you imply by that description any just war is automatically lost.

quote:


In other words, since any modern war is won or lost through propaganda battles more than anything else, any such admission would be used to help defeat a given power - wouldn't it.


...as does clear evidence that the US tortures innocent people and then lies about it. This is a war about ideas as much as anything. A war to decide who is not just more powerful, but who is in the right.
It does the US much less damage to admit a mistake than it does for the US to pretend in the face of all the evidence that it does not.

Of course all this would be avoided if the US gave up the use of third parties to torture people in its name. It seems to me that if you are going to torture people then do it on your own soil.....and have your own courts rule it legal. To indulge in this rendition stuff is simply to duck the issue.....that, in and of itself, is a propaganda loss for the US.....it smacks of moral cowardice.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 1:15:12 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

If that were so then why didn't the courts take out a restraining order against Hitler and the Nazis? lol


...however, after the war actions committed during that war were subject to the courts. Nuremburg comes to mind. Clearly there are rules of war, and breaking them does have consequences.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 2:21:45 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		Now that the right wing has had their say, predictable though it was, I do think the situation is nuanced to some degree.

If a nation's forces gain control of a person on their own soil or on the soil of a nation they are invading occupying then the internationally recognized rules of war and or the law of that nation are to be followed to the letter. However if that nation's intelligence forces gain control of an enemy person in a foreign nation then rendition to a country more amenable to the combatant nation's goals is acceptable. However that is not carte blanche and must be weighed against the harm to relations when the nation where the target was captured discovers what you've done. Furthermore common decency requires that while you might use extreme coercion in the face of an imminent threat that such treatment must end after a very short time, a few days at most, and if the captive turns out to be the wrong man or simply innocent/uninvolved then release and some sort of reperations are in order.

No longer speaking in hypotheticals:
Grabbing an innocent off the street in Italy without the knowledge and cooperation of the Italian government is stupid and counter productive.

Disappearing suspects from American soil to Egypt or where ever is a criminal act and deserving of the harshest allowed penalty for kidnapping, assault etc.

But if the CIA grabs a guy in Syria and takes him to Israel where Mossad beats him till he gives up operational details of an imminent attack, I'm totally ok with that. Although personally that sort of operation would end with the Syrian dead from a bullet to the back of the skull and an anonymous burial not in a years long detention and repeated interrogation like the guy will have mystically been able to keep up to date on his groups operational planning.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 3:26:58 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

If that were so then why didn't the courts take out a restraining order against Hitler and the Nazis? lol


...however, after the war actions committed during that war were subject to the courts. Nuremburg comes to mind. Clearly there are rules of war, and breaking them does have consequences.



Phil, correct, there are rules of war and one of those rules is that you can shoot combatants who are not in uniform summarily as spies.
You get as much info as you can out of them for however long it takes then take them out back and shoot them as spies.
Just because we hold them for 6 months or 5 years doesn't mean they aren't going to be executed as spies.
What difference does it make wether we do renditions to other countries if those savages are condemned anyway?
In Vietnam when they caught a spy they'd question them then either shoot them or take them up for a helocopter ride and push them out at 2,000 feet.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 3:42:21 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Phil, correct, there are rules of war and one of those rules is that you can shoot combatants who are not in uniform summarily as spies.


......while that may be true, it doesn't apply to all these cases of rendition. There has been at least one documented case where the guy who was renditioned was subsequently proven innocent of all charges. Shooting people whether they are innocent or not is surely one of the ways you tell the good guys from the bad guys. The good guys don't do it, and if it is proven that an accident has happened they apologise.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 3:46:15 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Now that the right wing has had their say, predictable though it was, I do think the situation is nuanced to some degree.



...i've only quoted your first paragraph, but i do tend to agree with the rest of your post. The problem with rendition as used in recent years is that it has moved far away from enemy combatants and it seems it is now being used against people with very little in the way of evidence against them.
i'd argue that if the US feels this is appropriate (and in some rare cases it may be) then it ought to be done on US soil and proven lawful in US courts. Using other countrys to do US dirty work is bordering on cowardice.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 4:27:25 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Phil, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 4:48:22 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Is "holding justice in high regard" the same as "suicide"? Or is it different.


...it is entirely different. You brought up the idea that this is a just war. By the logic you imply by that description any just war is automatically lost.



I never said "this" is a just war, I was discussing pure hypotheticals so that perhaps we can cut all the crazy emotions out of the discussion. And what I was asking was, if one is to prosecute a just war does one have to "fight fair" to the point of suicide?  

While you're certain that everyone fighting against the jihad is running around torturing people all the time, that everybody's always getting tortured, I'm not so sure. But that's a different topic anyway... why not start a thread on that.

quote:



...as does clear evidence that the US tortures innocent people and then lies about it. This is a war about ideas as much as anything. A war to decide who is not just more powerful, but who is in the right.



Who says this is a war about who is "right". That sounds more like a debate than it does a war.

quote:


It does the US much less damage to admit a mistake than it does for the US to pretend in the face of all the evidence that it does not.


No, not true. There are those waiting in the wings to grab on to any admission of any kind so that they can constantly trumpet it as some kind of a victory against the West by al-Qaeda. Sure, mistakes are made, we're all human, but why should we expose our soft underbelly this way. Just because you think it's the right thing to do? I'd rather we kept a few secrets. Keep the war clean, yes - but we shouldn't be in the habit of getting on our knees, closing our eyes, and bowing our heads down in front of our enemies.

quote:

 

Of course all this would be avoided if the US gave up the use of third parties to torture people in its name. It seems to me that if you are going to torture people then do it on your own soil.....and have your own courts rule it legal. To indulge in this rendition stuff is simply to duck the issue.....that, in and of itself, is a propaganda loss for the US.....it smacks of moral cowardice.


There are those who say we need to close GITMO and return the enemy combatants to their homelands, and then there are those like you who say that that would be a crime. <shrugs> Moral cowardice would be doing nothing to stop al-Qaeda and their allies, which is what many on your side of the issues seem to me to be demanding. War is dirty and it's ugly, and if we bind the hands and feet of those who we send off to win it we shouldn't be too surprised when we lose

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 4:53:19 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline 		While the Iraq war is based on flawed intelligence, the war on terror is still going on. Despite the setbacks Al Queda is a losely knit organisation of muslim extremists. Bin Laden has the money and also the political connections to make things happen, Bali and Africa show us that much. While Bin Laden is free there is still a big danger.
Renditions are a legitimate use, providing two things happens, firstly that they follow any US laws and secondly they are 100% sure they have the right guy.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Rendition - 10/24/2007 7:04:38 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		EVERYWHERE the US Government goes, THE US Government is BOUND by the Constitution.

When it says ALL PERSONS, it means ***ALL*** ***PERSONS***.

Those of you suggesting that "Enemy Combatants" aren't "PERSONS" got some real problems.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Rendition - 10/25/2007 8:30:00 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

I never said "this" is a just war, I was discussing pure hypotheticals so that perhaps we can cut all the crazy emotions out of the discussion. And what I was asking was, if one is to prosecute a just war does one have to "fight fair" to the point of suicide?  


.......not to the point of suicide clearly. However justice has to be part of it or it is not a just war.

quote:

While you're certain that everyone fighting against the jihad is running around torturing people all the time, that everybody's always getting tortured, I'm not so sure. But that's a different topic anyway... why not start a thread on that.


.....nowhere have i said what you have implied. You have just empliyed a strawman argument. What i am interested in discussing is the recent US practice of rendition.....and what happens when they have the wrong person.

quote:



Who says this is a war about who is "right". That sounds more like a debate than it does a war.


...because if it isn't then it is not a just war.....or anything close to it.

quote:


There are those waiting in the wings to grab on to any admission of any kind so that they can constantly trumpet it as some kind of a victory against the West by al-Qaeda. Sure, mistakes are made, we're all human, but why should we expose our soft underbelly this way. Just because you think it's the right thing to do? I'd rather we kept a few secrets. Keep the war clean, yes - but we shouldn't be in the habit of getting on our knees, closing our eyes, and bowing our heads down in front of our enemies.


....you seem to think that the US can fight a war against international terror entirely on its own. It can not. If the US ignores international standards continually then the propaganda effect on its allies can not be ignored. i am explicitly suggesting that the effect of this sort of rendition will eventually be to cut the US off from external aid and support. Such an outcome is far from trivial. 

quote:

 
There are those who say we need to close GITMO and return the enemy combatants to their homelands, and then there are those like you who say that that would be a crime. <shrugs> Moral cowardice would be doing nothing to stop al-Qaeda and their allies, which is what many on your side of the issues seem to me to be demanding. War is dirty and it's ugly, and if we bind the hands and feet of those who we send off to win it we shouldn't be too surprised when we lose


...you've ducked my specific point. i have deliberately avoided talking about GITMO. This argument is about rendition....the transport of suspected terrorists to third party countries in order to encourage torture against them. Once again, if the US truly feels this is the right thing to do, then do it on US soil and allow its legality to be tested in US courts. Getting someone else to do your dirty work is moral cowardice.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Rendition - 10/25/2007 10:36:24 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

EVERYWHERE the US Government goes, THE US Government is BOUND by the Constitution.

When it says ALL PERSONS, it means ***ALL*** ***PERSONS***.

Those of you suggesting that "Enemy Combatants" aren't "PERSONS" got some real problems.




Fargle, how many times do you have to be told that the U.S. Constitution does not extend beyond our borders?
Go up to Canada and try telling them about your "Constitutional rights."
Just because we believe that all men have inalienable God given rights that doesn't make it so, especially in other countries.
You have a very strange interpretation of the Constitution.
You seem to believe that the U.S. Constitution applies world-wide.
And legal scholors have determined that the phrase "The People" as it is written in the Constitution means the citizens of the origional 13 colonies and now the United States.
I don't think you'd get very far with that "The People" stuff in say......Cuba.
Again, this is just Courts trying to interfere in Military matters.
How would the Courts like it if the Military tried to interfere in Court matters?
I think the Legislative branch needs to set more clear and defining boundries for the Judicial branch.
We can't have the courts running wild and trying to get involved in areas where it has no business being, not to mention "legislating from the bench."



_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Rendition - 10/25/2007 11:06:23 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Again, this is just Courts trying to interfere in Military matters.
How would the Courts like it if the Military tried to interfere in Court matters?


...this assumes that the two entities talked about (the judiciary and the military) are utterly seperate things. They are not, there is, in fact, a hierarchy here. The military is not above the law. They are not even equal to it......they are subservient to it.
Courts telling the military what is legal is simply how it is done in civilised countries. Military telling courts what to do is how they do it in Burma. The alternative to this is cafetaria law......something that, when it comes to illegal aliens, i know you dislike intensely Popeye....and with good reason.
No-one is above the law.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Rendition - 10/25/2007 11:22:53 AM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Philosphy, Gitmo is indeed part of this issue.  If Gitmo is closed (which you and others demand), the inmates would be sent back to thier home countries (which is rendition), where many/most would face legal sanction in places like Syria and Arabia, and if not torture, inhumane treatment (as that is the norm for prisioners). 

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Rendition Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.203