"I can ... say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture"

[scheming daemons]

Let me repeat:

"I can stand here tonight and say ... without exception or equivocation ... that the United States of America does not torture."



Have I said recently how much I love our President?

;-)

[tavalon]

1. Do we still use extraordinary rendition to let the Turkish do our torturing for us?

If so, that was a bit wiggly.

[Occam Bandage]

2. No. We don't.

There was a big fuss here over the fact that we still perform renditions, but that completely ignored the fact that "rendition" means nothing but handing custody of a detainee to that of another country, which is often the best idea. If we find and capture a terrorist in Turkey, it's perfectly acceptable to hand him over to Turkey for trial under Turkish law.

[BlueMTexpat]

3. Just curious: how do "we" find and capture a terrorist

IN Turkey?

Are "we" allowed to perform arrests anywhere in the world? Isn't there a little thing known as state sovereignty, or have we thrown that concept out with a lot of our own Constitutional concepts?

Performing renditions, i.e., capturing someone in one country and transferring that individual to a third country where s/he can be tortured ... which is exactly what has been going on ... is simply not acceptable.

Until the rendition policy is clearly and unequivocally revoked once and for all, I am not convinced that the US does not torture. But I am not the problem: you can be sure that the non-US world is not convinced one whit.

[damonm]

4. You misunderstand renditions.

"Performing renditions, i.e., capturing someone in one country and transferring that individual to a third country where s/he can be tortured ... which is exactly what has been going on ... is simply not acceptable."
Your definition of renditions needs work. What your above-quoted bit covers is "extaordinary renditions" - a term fabricated out of whole cloth by the Bush Administration. What It All Means is explained here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/01/29/the_confusion_over_renditions/

[BlueMTexpat]

5. Thanks for the article ... Clarke does explain

why the "extraordinary renditions" were not even necessary.

They are still unacceptable. And again, I am not the problem.

[damonm]

7. Never said you were.

Just thought you misunderstood the situation.
My apologies if I came off snarky.

[chill_wind]

9. There's an interesting piece of commentary here. (Darren Hutchinson)

He calls it "formalism".

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/elevating-form-over-substance-liberals.html

He adds to that here:

"Still a Flip-Flop: My Fellow Liberals Push Back Against Allegations of Inconsistency Concerning Rendition."

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/still-flip-flop-my-fellow-liberals-push.html

Which is not to suggest that's the case in this thread, I don't presume to know that-- but just that it has been and will continue to be worth observing at large.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

6. Uh Oh!

"Living our values doesn't make us weaker, it makes us safer and it makes us stronger. And that is why I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture," Obama said.

There is no way that isn't going to bite him in the ass down the road!

[damonm]

8. "There is no way that isn't going to bite him in the ass down the road!"

If we DO torture, it damn well SHOULD bite him in the ass.

If we don't, it won't.