IANAL but this has a major bearing in the matter and should not be overlooked.

The one was an ad hoc decision which was approved and carried out, The other is an intentional directive to carry out a previously decided policy.

Then too, facts do matter. It is one fact as to how extradition is carried out internally between states, IIRC the request for rendering from one state to another involves the approval of the executive of the rendering state to legitimize the rendition to the requesting state.

It is completely different externally, where the request is of differing sovereign jurisdictions that may be governed by existing treaty or not, also the vagaries of diplomatic relations may intrude into the facts of the case. It appears clear that the Clinton renditions were done under the color of law. Not so the wBush renditions without the wholesale reversal of traditional use.

It should be born in mind the differences between Moral; Ethical and Legal. Conflating any of the concepts is as dangerous as ignorance of the concepts. When words no longer carry their original meanings, it is tantamount to ignorance. Please for the sake of communications, be ultra careful in the use of words, it is the only real bridge between us.

There is also the fact that in the Clinton administration it was not policy driven actions that these issues occurred. Not so under the present administration which has made such issues a mandated government policy. IANAL but this has a major bearing in the matter and should not be overlooked.

LHP:
On the issue of language, a book was published which I find immensely illuminating, even more so as it isn’t written in american, the native user of the mother tongue helps keep much of the baggage of assumptions of meaning to a minimum. That book is:

UNSPEAK(TM) by Steven Poole ISBN 0-316-73100-5

Unspeak is language as a weapon. What do ‘pre-life’, ‘natural resources’ and ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ have in common? They are all attempts to persuade us of something: that abortion is always wrong; that the environment is there to be used up; and that the 2003 Iraq war had no other motive than the liberation of the Iraqi people.

In societies of apparently free public debate, Unspeak tries to shut down arguements before they happen. ….

Quote from inside front cover flap.

I have commented before about the book, apparently just to listen to the keyboard rattle.

Thank you very much.

Again: LHP, the answers to these questions matter, and hopefully you might have the answers or know someone who should? Thanks, LHP, in advance and in general for being a primary source of enlightenment for those many of us who are not lawyers.

Just asking, what law is he talking about?

That’s about what Scheuer said @ selise’s link

PS Thanks selise

L8r

LHP said:

Renditions are not illegal. In fact they are expressly provided for in Article 4, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

Here’s what it says

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Aren’t they talking about persons within the US? How can the US constitution apply to other countries?

From selise’s link @ 8

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.

IANAL and I don’t know what law they’re talking about (like I said, not a lawyer) but I do know about a little about PDD-39 which says:

o Return of Indicted Terrorists to the U.S. for Prosecution: We shall vigorously apply extraterritorial statutes to counter acts of terrorism and apprehend terrorists outside of the United States. When terrorists wanted for violation of U.S. law are at large overseas, their return for prosecution shall be a matter of the highest priority and shall be a continuing central issue in bilateral relations with any state that harbors or assists them. Where we do not have adequate arrangements, the Departments of State and Justice shall work to resolve the problem, where possible and appropriate, through negotiation and conclusion of new extradition treaties. (U)

Just asking, what law is he talking about?

And, the next paragraph

If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government, consistent with the procedures outlined in NSD-77, which shall remain in effect. (S)

“induce cooperation”

“Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government”

That would be where kidnapping comes in doesn’t it?

Is NSD-77 their alleged veil of legality?

From Ghost Plane by Stephen Grey

NSD-77 was a directive issued in 1992 by George H.W. Bush that remained classified. There was now an additional component, which became classified. It was summarized later in the 911 commission: “If extradition procedures were unavailable or put aside, the U.S. could seek the local country’s assistance in a rendition, putting the fugitive in a plane back to America or some third country for trial”

Actually though that would be illegal – right? – when reading BOHICA’s post @ 36

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

Article 3
1. No State Party shall expel, return (”refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Which is probably why NSD-77 is still classified — because they know it’s illegal. Google Syria and torture; and Egypt and torture; and Croatia and torture; and whatever other countries we’ve sent suspects to

I’m still murky on how this program is legal for anyone … unless they’re brought back to the US to stand trial in US courts

An Open Letter to Barack Obama.

I support your candidacy.
I have sent you money.
I have been a lifelong Democrat.
I belonged to a union for 31 years.
I believe the Clintons will sell out to anyone to get/stay elected.
I am more than 20 years your senior.

I believe I know more about working Americans than you do.
Your actions and non-actions in your campaign make me feel more certain of that feeling each day.

You are going to lose the 2008 presidential election.

You have taken a week’s vacation while your opponent was calling you a traitor to your face. While hardly campaigning, your opponent was presented nightly on the Republican favoring Main Stream Media as The Happy Warrior, tirelessly campaigning, while Barack NEEDED a Week Breather from all this hard work of non-campaigning campaigning. It matters not if it was a WORKING vacation. If this election is SO important to you and America’s future, how could you associate with the concept of being on vacation ?

(I suppose I should be thankful you didn’t go wind-surfing and talk to reporters from 30 yards off-shore.)

You said from your vacation you will not allow your opponent to question your patriotism.

And then your opponent says he’s NOT questioning your patriotism, and again questions your patriotism. Barack, YOU are being ZOOMED by an old, rich white guy.

You seem to confuse saying you will not allow something as being the same thing as actually not allowing it. They are not. What it IS saying is, “Please don’t call me names.Please.”

You say you want to change the tone of American politics.

If you truly feel that, and you truly know American politics, (which I believe you don’t) then you would be the first Democrat in a long time to be defending themselves, and counter-attacking against your opponent, and calling out the Republican favoring Main Stream Media for their complicity in allowing your opponent’s lies to propagate and propagate, and while leaving your populist positions and factual rebuttals on the cutting room floor.

Somehow, you have determined that the Republican verbal and emotional abuse, election fraud, and dirty tricks gainst Democrats since 1980, abetted the meager Democratic defense of its candidates, is somehow also greatly the fault of the Democrats. And YOU, being not of the common sort, want to RISE above all that, and teach Democrats and Republicans “How to Just Get Along”.

What arrogance. What intellectual elitism.

Jesus Christ was a peace-maker. He was nailed to the cross.

But that won’t happen to Barack, will it? You can deliver the Democratic lambs to the Republican wolves and teach the wolves to be nice. Sure you can.

Barack, you may be of this world, but you are not of the American Zeitgeist.

Americans are not in your classroom. You will not teach Americans how to Just Get Along. Americans will shun you. If you cannot defend yourself, HOW IN THE UNIVERSE can you protect an entire nation.

Barack, you can be polite, or you can be American president. But you will NOT be both.

So if you are uncomfortable in the school yard filled with bullies that is American presidential politics, go to the teachers lounge, and let Hillary run. For as much as Hillary will sell out working-class Americans as her husband did, she will still be better for the entire planet and its citizens, than would a failed, humiliated, unstable, hot-headed warrior getting control of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

You have now maneuvered yourself into a difficult, difficult elevation, IF you do start counter-attacking as the undecided voters sub-consciously demand that you do, you will be seen as being directed from outward forces, as kind of an Obama Reed in the wind. And you will be attacked by the Republican lusting Main Stream Media as being just like being every other politician, Barack the Phony. But this is the gauntlet you must run, if you TRULY desire to be our leader.

I hope you are tough enough to be president

But you brought this conundrum about yourself. Now let’s see how you presidentiate yourself out of your Holier-Than-Thou Presidential Candidate Tower. After all is said and done, America IS the Warrior Nation of the last and current century.

Come join us in the electoral mud, where the eventual winner must slog through.

I don’t believe Hillary made you a better candidate. I believe she made you a better turtle.

i’m willing to hold clinton accountable to the same standard i hold bush. are you?