Clearly, in some of the third party cases prisoners might have been liable to what we would consider abusive detention, but if what Benjamin and Simon (or Scheuer for that matter) say is close to the truth, it strikes me as a slender reed for “justifying” the degree of Congressional resistance to calling anyone on the carpet for anything; but then, I guess I’m far enough along in life to conclude that I’m less risk averse about some things than some people are.

Herewith (all emphasis theirs):
David Benjamin and Steven Simon, The Age of Sacred Terror 2002, p.251:

As fears about terrorism rose, the CIA also began to innovate. Its most important step was to vastly increase the number of “renditions” it carried out. Rendition is a term of art for the apprehension and transfer abroad, outside the system of legal extradition, of an individual who is wanted for terrorism or other crimes. Renditions may be done for a number of reasons: the country in which the suspect is found may not have an extradition treaty with the United States, yet may wish to cooperate with Washington; or, more often, the country in question is easger to avoid the publicity that extradition would entail. Before the Clinton administration, there had been only three renditions to the United States. Beginning in 1993, renditions became a boom industry for the CIA: in July of that year, Mohammed Ali Razaq, who helped hijack and EgyptAir plane with Americans aboard in 1985, was rendered from Nigeria. In February 1995, Ramzi Yousef was rendered from Pakistan. Also in 1995, Yousef’s associates Abdul Hakim Murad, Eyad Ismoil, and Wali Khan Amin Shah were all brought to the United States. The CIA also stepped up its assistance in renditions between other countries. In these cases, the Agency helped other governments identify terrorists, even entire cells, operating within their borders. The terrorists would be detained and, with logistical help from the United States, delivered to a third coutnry for trial. These operations were kept secret so that the country in which the terrorist was found, or the one he was delivered to, or both, were protected from charges that they were acting as lackeys of the United States. By 1997, the number of renditions grew as more countries, especially in the Islamic world, recognized that individuals within their borders represented a serious threat to their own security.

And my understanding is it is even more difficult to get rid of tenured staff in the California system than it is in most other states. And it is quite difficult and time consuming to remove tenured staff in most universities.

When I know an answer, I give it. When I don’t know an answer, I’m clear about why I don’t know it and what I’d have to look at to come closer to knowing, which I was above. What I did not say was that there should be no sanction — or that there is none — because I don’t know that for certain, either. If you read what I wrote at 33 more carefully, you’ll see that — especially as I finished my answer by saying: “So, honestly? The answer is I don’t know…but as I have time to dig through as much of this as is publicly available, I’ll see if I can find some measure of answer…” which I think is a very clear indication that I do not know the answer for certain because I have to look at that whole list of things that I just reiterated.

Our society is loaded with cancerous growths, killing “good” cells all the time.

I thought the Justice Department applies law as written by congress, or in the case of “questions of law” interpretations of the law’s intent as written by congress, reviewed for constitutionality by the the judiciary? I was unaware that the Executive or the OLC could “erroneously interpret” laws to justify “actions” inconsistent with well settled law?

Constitutional usurpation “under the color” of law AG Mukasey? What would Jefferson have to say about this newfound rationalization by corporate aristocrats…….

Exxon Mobile aka Standard Oil and Corporate Treason anyone??????