Obama's program of war
-
Obama's program of warby James Cogan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12089
Within days of taking power, the Obama administration has made clear that it will escalate the war to subjugate the Afghan people, intensify US military strikes on targets inside Pakistan and continue the occupation of Iraq indefinitely. What is being prepared is a brutal escalation of US military violence in Afghanistan and a widening of the conflagration in the region.
Obama left a two-hour meeting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff yesterday pledging to ensure that the military received the "resources and the support" to wage the wars being conducted by the United States. He told journalists he would soon be announcing "some difficult decisions that we're going to have to make surrounding Iraq and Afghanistan."
The essence of those decisions was indicated on Tuesday in the testimony of Defense Secretary Robert Gates before the Senate and House armed services committees. Obama's appointment of Gates marked the new president's unambiguous repudiation of the campaign rhetoric that appealed to broad antiwar sentiment among the American people. Gates served the Bush administration in the same post for the past two years and directed the escalation of the Iraq war from early 2007 to early 2008.
Gates told the senators: "There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan. As you know, the United States has focused more on Central Asia in recent months. President Obama has made it clear that the Afghanistan theatre should be our top overseas military priority." The war in Afghanistan, he added, would be "long and difficult." The short-term time frame he placed on the conflict was "five years"?at least until 2014. He said an increase in US casualties was "likely" as operations are stepped-up against the anti-occupation insurgency being waged by loyalists of the former Taliban regime and other Afghan Islamist movements.
Gates stressed that as the new administration escalates military action in Central Asia, it has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq. Warning that resistance could erupt again against US forces in Iraq, he said "there may be hard days ahead for our troops." Even if units designated as "combat" are pulled out roughly according to the 16-month schedule promised by Obama during the election, Gates emphasized that a sizeable force would remain and "we should still expect to be involved in Iraq on some level for many years to come."
He told the Senate committee that Obama will send 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan as soon as possible. The first of the four combat brigades requested last year by General David McKiernan, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has already taken up positions in areas to the east of the Afghan capital, Kabul. The 3,500 troops, from the 10th Mountain Division, have begun operations in the provinces of Wardak and Logar.
Analysts are predicting that Obama will order the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade to deploy to Afghanistan by mid-spring. Another Marine brigade will follow by mid-summer. The final additional brigade will arrive before the end of the year.
The intensified fighting will not be confined to Afghanistan. The predominantly ethnic Pashtun Afghan insurgents have safe havens and derive support among the Pashtun population of Pakistan's Federally Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA). As a result, the US and NATO forces have been unable to prevent the Afghan resistance from launching daily attacks across entire swathes of southern Afghanistan and replenishing both its ranks and weapons. Large-scale US military strikes on the FATA and even more deeply into Pakistan are the logical outcome of Obama's determination to place Afghanistan under US control. It was "impossible," Gates declared, "to disaggregate Afghanistan and Pakistan, given the porous border between them." He left no doubt that the US military would continue to conduct air strikes inside Pakistan, regardless of the opposition of the Pakistani government and Pakistani people, on the pretext that the targets were linked to Al Qaeda.
The primary motive for the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was not to fight terrorism, but to create a base for the assertion of US influence over the resource-rich former Soviet republics in Central Asia. During last year's presidential election, Obama served as the mouthpiece for factions of the American establishment that had concluded the preoccupation with Iraq had resulted in Central Asia coming too much under the political and economic sway of Russia and China.
The re-emphasis on Afghanistan is intended to reverse this trend. Under the guise of securing supply routes for the increased US military force, intense diplomacy is taking place to establish access rights and military bases in Central Asian states such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Currently, the bulk of US and NATO supplies to Afghanistan move through border passes in the FATA, where they are coming under increasing attack by insurgents. Following a NATO summit on Monday, the Russian government announced that it is prepared to allow its territory and air space to be used to transport US and NATO supplies into Afghanistan.
Gates's testimony also indicated a shift in the relations between the US and the puppet government it has installed in Kabul under President Hamid Karzai. Along with fighting "terrorism," the Bush administration justified the occupation of Afghanistan with constant references to bringing "democracy," "development" and "human rights" to the Afghan people.
Gates dismissed such claims on Obama's behalf, telling senators: "If we set ourselves the objective of establishing some sort of a Central Asia Valhalla over there, we will lose... because nobody in the world has that much time, patience or money, to be honest...."
A brutal real politik will define the Obama administration's policy in Afghanistan. Karzai's government is frequently derided in US foreign policy circles for its endemic corruption and its lack of popular support among the Afghan people. A more important reason for flagging US enthusiasm for its puppet Karzai is the latter's public criticisms of US air strikes that target and kill Afghan civilians. The Obama administration has every intention of escalating the bloodshed and will brook no interference from its client regime.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Obama may support a campaign to remove Karzai in the presidential election scheduled to be held in the country later this year. The alternative to attempts to create a strong central government is the Iraq "surge" model. The commander of US forces in Iraq, General David Petraeus?who now heads the US Central Command?authorized his officers in particular parts of Iraq to bribe insurgent leaders to change sides, in exchange for both money and a degree of local power.
In a similar fashion, sources close to the Obama administration told the Times that it "would work with provincial leaders as an alternative to the central government, and that it would leave economic development and nation-building to European allies, so that American forces could concentrate on the fight against insurgents."
The result of this policy could be greater tensions between the US and the European powers. During his testimony, Gates demanded that NATO member-states "step up to the plate" and provide more forces and resources for the war in Afghanistan.
Even with 30,000 extra American troops, the occupation force will still be severely under-manned. In the midst of the ongoing occupation of Iraq and an economic meltdown, however, Gates told the Senate that he was "skeptical" the US military could contribute "additional American force levels beyond what General McKiernan has already asked for."
Under Bush, NATO states, particularly Germany, France, Italy and Turkey, repeatedly rejected US requests that they dramatically increase their involvement in the Afghan conflict. They must now decide how to respond to the Obama White House.
A British Broadcasting Corporation correspondent commented on Tuesday: "If NATO allies falter now, the long-term implications in terms of separating the United States from Europe could be severe... The issue is emerging as a potential troubling one at the 60th anniversary summit [of NATO] to be held in early April."
Millions of Americans were channelled into voting for Obama and the Democratic Party by the illusion that they would implement a decisive shift away from the militarism and neo-colonial interventions that marked the Bush years. Instead, they face an administration that is just as determined as Bush's to use brute military force to secure the economic and strategic interests of American imperialism. Countless thousands of Afghan and Pakistani lives, and those of hundreds if not thousands more American troops, are to be sacrificed in the process.
This reality underscores not only the debased character of "democracy" in the United States, but the necessity for a break with the two parties of US imperialism and a fundamental political reorientation of the working class toward a socialist and internationalist program. -
If Obama administration cannot close down the Guantanamo Bay Detention camp, it would be a real embarassment.
And now they are saying......
Detention camp at Guantánamo Bay won't close, but it won't be the same.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/13/america/scotus.php -
He might be the first black president of America, but at the same time, he is also the first black puppet of America.
-
The FUCK? You would rather the Taliban take over Afghanistan? What are you ? Smoking too much hashish?
And Obama already signed the fucking order to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay within a year. Have you been sleeping in a hole?
-
Calm down, we are just chatting here
All of us certainly hope to see the terrorist activities curbed.
But regarding Guantanomo Bay, they changed their minds again. Clink on my link. -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
The FUCK? You would rather the Taliban take over Afghanistan? What are you ? Smoking too much hashish?
And Obama already signed the fucking order to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay within a year. Have you been sleeping in a hole?
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, poppy production was zero. They reduced it to zero. Now, under the US occupation, Afghanistan again supplies the world with 90% of its heroin. Something smells fishy here.
Sure close Guantanamo Bay, but lets make sure that ALL of the US's secret bases in Romania, Poland etc are also revealed and shut down as well.
But wait a minute, water boarding isn't torture?
-
Why close down Gitmo? So that the inmates can be free to perform Jihad all over again?
Former Guantanamo inmate Said Ali al-Shihri now terror leader
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Why close down Gitmo? So that the inmates can be free to perform Jihad all over again?
Former Guantanamo inmate Said Ali al-Shihri now terror leader
If you're not a terrorist, then someone reported you to the Americans to earn that 5000 US reward money. You are locked up in Guantanamo for years subjected to torture, interrogation and ridicule.
Even a pacifist Muslim would turn terrorist.
-
Right, I strongly support jailing terrorist suspects in Gitmo. Including the 1 million+ Americans that are on the TSA's terrorist watch list.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
If you're not a terrorist, then someone reported you to the Americans to earn that 5000 US reward money. You are locked up in Guantanamo for years subjected to torture, interrogation and ridicule.
Even a pacifist Muslim would turn terrorist.
Good point. But evidently googoomuck isnt the kind of person who is able to process that kind of logic. To him, being a Muslim is probably enough to qualify someone as a terrorist. And what's more, they shouldnt be recognised as humans or treated as such.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
If you're not a terrorist, then someone reported you to the Americans to earn that 5000 US reward money. You are locked up in Guantanamo for years subjected to torture, interrogation and ridicule.
Even a pacifist Muslim would turn terrorist.
They were already terrorists before they were caught and locked up.
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
They were already terrorists before they were caught and locked up.
What makes you so sure? You do realise they're only terrorists because the authorities say they are?
If the local police chief in Afghanistan points at a man he doesn't like and say that he's a terrorist to the Americans, who would the Americans believe? The local political authority ? Or the man who would have every inclination to deny it ?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, poppy production was zero. They reduced it to zero. Now, under the US occupation, Afghanistan again supplies the world with 90% of its heroin. Something smells fishy here.
Sure close Guantanamo Bay, but lets make sure that ALL of the US's secret bases in Romania, Poland etc are also revealed and shut down as well.
But wait a minute, water boarding isn't torture?
And during the Taliban, women had no rights, tehy were stoned for adultery, they had no means for education, they allowed honor killings, etc. etc. etc. etc.
You are fucking dense, if not incredibly stupid.
With regard to the water boarding, the incoming US Attorney General declared Water boarding as torture.
You are a fucking moron.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
What makes you so sure? You do realise they're only terrorists because the authorities say they are?
If the local police chief in Afghanistan points at a man he doesn't like and say that he's a terrorist to the Americans, who would the Americans believe? The local political authority ? Or the man who would have every inclination to deny it ?
Most of these people were captured on the field of battle in Afghanistan, fighting the Americans. Some of these were actually in the process of conspiracy against the American government in foreign countries. The current legal status of the former are in a state of flux because they are not POWs. As a result, a new law will have to be drafted somehow to either try them or transfer them overseas where they can be tried or kept in more civil conditions.
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
And during the Taliban, women had no rights, tehy were stoned for adultery, they had no means for education, they allowed honor killings, etc. etc. etc. etc.
You are fucking dense, if not incredibly stupid.
With regard to the water boarding, the incoming US Attorney General declared Water boarding as torture.
You are a fucking moron.
I guess Afghanistan is a reformed country now under NATO/US occupation.
I like how they switch from Enhanced Interrogation to Lawful Interrogation.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
What makes you so sure? You do realise they're only terrorists because the authorities say they are?
If the local police chief in Afghanistan points at a man he doesn't like and say that he's a terrorist to the Americans, who would the Americans believe? The local political authority ? Or the man who would have every inclination to deny it ?
So, by using your logic, whatever you'v posted cannot be taken as true.
Hambali and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed are among some of the high-profile terorists still in Gitmo.
More than 400 detainees were already released without charge. About 60 of them may have returned to perform Jihad.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
. They reduced it to zero. Now, under the US occupation, Afghanistan again supplies the world with 90% of its heroin. Something smells fishy here.
Sure close Guantanamo Bay, but lets make sure that ALL of the US's secret bases in Romania, Poland etc are also revealed and shut down as well.
But wait a minute, water boarding isn't torture?
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, poppy production was zeroWhich part of the info did you not understand. The poppy production was what fuel the Taliban economy....export thru Pakistan.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
If you're not a terrorist, then someone reported you to the Americans to earn that 5000 US reward money. You are locked up in Guantanamo for years subjected to torture, interrogation and ridicule.
Even a pacifist Muslim would turn terrorist.
Someone report you are a terrorist and they capture you......ha ha ha.......You think the US intel is that stupid. You have no idea the kind of technology that is deploy to locate these hardcore terrorist and to understand their operation.
So stop creating your own conclusion and do better research......don't just copy and paste some idiotic web site.
-
wow, to think dat economic recession would make US reconsiders future military deployment... all those debts piling up hahahaha i wonder how theyre gonna get themselves out of this situation :D
-
Originally posted by 4sg:
Calm down, we are just chatting here
All of us certainly hope to see the terrorist activities curbed.
But regarding Guantanomo Bay, they changed their minds again. Clink on my link.That article is half a year old. That order to close the prison in one year was signed last week.
-
yanwnnzzz.... don't you guys like keep up to date ?
Old gossips are boring ya know ?
-
Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Someone report you are a terrorist and they capture you......ha ha ha.......You think the US intel is that stupid. You have no idea the kind of technology that is deploy to locate these hardcore terrorist and to understand their operation.
So stop creating your own conclusion and do better research......don't just copy and paste some idiotic web site.
Heh, as if your information is any more reliable.
I have no issues with the technology deployed, i merely have issues with the people interpreting the information coming out of the technology.
They can bomb villages in Pakistan and proclaimed that terrorists are killed, it's not like there's going to be anyone verifying it.
-
Obama’s Torture Loopholes
by Prof. James Hill
Global Research, January 26, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12041
On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed a number of executive orders purporting to end the Bush administration’s abusive practices in dealing with treatment of terrorism suspects. Before Americans get too elated, however, they should look carefully at the inhumane interrogation practices these orders may still permit.
When first announced, the new president’s executive orders seemed cause for celebration, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to feature a link on its website encouraging visitors to email the president and “Send Him Thanks!”
The ACLU summarized the new orders:
President Obama . . . ordered the closure of the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay within a year and the halting of its military commissions; the end of the use of torture; the shuttering of secret prisons around the world; and a review of the detention of the only U.S. resident being held indefinitely as a so-called “enemy combatant” on American soil. The detainee, Ali al-Marri, is the American Civil Liberties Union’s client in a case pending before the Supreme Court.
Like many reacting to the president’s orders, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero expressed unbridled enthusiasm:
These executive orders represent a giant step forward. Putting an end to Guantanamo, torture and secret prisons is a civil liberties trifecta, and President Obama should be highly commended for this bold and decisive action so early in his administration on an issue so critical to restoring an America we can be proud of again.[1]
Torture by US officials has long been illegal, but the president’s executive order entitled “Ensuring Lawful Interrogations” seems to clarify, to some extent, what activities are proscribed. Disappointingly, though, this order contains loopholes big enough to drive a FEMA camp train through them.
Loophole 1: Torture is prohibited only of persons detained in an “armed conflict.”
The executive order applies only to “armed conflicts,” not counterterrorism operations.
The order states in part:
Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, . . . the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, . . . the [United Nations] Convention Against Torture, [the Geneva Conventions] Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States [emphasis added].
This sounds salutary: America should not torture people detained in armed conflicts. But are such conflicts the only situations in which the US military, federal agencies, and private security companies can detain people today in the name of the war on terror?
Hardly. Many US and foreign citizens have been detained in counterterrorism operations, which another of Obama’s January 22 executive orders carefully differentiates from armed conflicts.
In that other executive order, entitled “Review of Detention Policy Options,” a special task force is commissioned to review procedures for detention suspects. This order clearly distinguishes between “armed conflicts” and “counterterrorism operations”:
The mission of the Special Task Force shall be to conduct a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.
As the president has made this distinction, so should we.
To date, counterterrorism operations have resulted in hundreds of arrests of persons in America and abroad, having nothing whatever to do with any armed conflict. Does President Obama wish limits on what is done to these people when detained and interrogated? His executive order on torture is silent on the issue.
Moreover, we know that many Guantanamo detainees from Pakistan and Afghanistan were sold to US officials by bounty hunters paid up to $25,000 per detainee, regardless of innocence.[2] Are these persons to be considered “individuals detained in [an] armed conflict”? Or must they be arrested while fighting on the battlefield to fit this qualification? Put differently, are blameless, uneducated goat herders who were sold into detention by warlords and mercenaries exempted from the president’s clarified prohibition of torture, simply because they never stepped foot on a battlefield?
Another concern is the US military’s deployment in American cities, which began on October 1, 2008, according to the Army Times.[3] Perhaps this deployment is in preparation for social unrest in the event of an economic collapse. If martial law were declared in America , how would citizens be treated? What if they were detained in FEMA detention facilities? Could they be tortured under the umbrella of “counterterrorism operations” because that is different from “armed conflict”?
To Americans wishing to remain free of torture, a far greater threat than detention during armed conflict is that resulting from what the federal government labels as counterterrorism operations, conducted both on US soil and overseas. Unfortunately, President Obama has not yet clearly addressed torture in this category.
Loophole 2: Only the CIA must close detention centers.
President Obama has ordered the CIA to close detention centers, except those “used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis,” which can stay open indefinitely. Exactly how long a duration is “short-term” and “transitory” is unclear.
The executive order states:
The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.
This sounds wonderful, but what about other federal agencies? Can the FBI, National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and Defense Intelligence Agency maintain detention facilities where torture may occur? Can private military contractors like Blackwater do so? Under one interpretation of Obama’s executive order on torture, those facilities may still operate and even expand, provided the CIA doesn’t control them. Is it cynical to suspect this could be window dressing?
Loophole 3: Officials may still hide some detainees and abusive practices from the Red Cross.
On the Red Cross’s monitoring of detainees, the executive order reads:
All departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with notification of, and timely access to, any individual detained in any armed conflict in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States Government, consistent with Department of Defense regulations and policies.
Here again, if a detainee is not one captured on the battlefield by US soldiers in an armed conflict, Obama’s order provides no guidance as to his fate. Government and private thugs may evidently still brutalize detainees obtained in counterterrorism operations and hide them from the Red Cross, unless and until the president issues a further executive order, or Congress passes a law, closing this loophole.
Loophole 4: Abuses not labeled “torture” may continue.
Obama’s executive order on torture does not label any particular practice “torture,” but instead requires that future interrogation practices conform to those outlined in the Army Field Manual. This may be in deference to Bush administration officials who authorized procedures like waterboarding while simultaneously declaring, “ America does not torture.” Debate in some circles will doubtless continue, therefore, over whether waterboarding; deprivation of food, water, and sleep; humiliation; and infliction of severe bodily pain and injury indeed constitute torture.
The executive order imparts the following limitations:
Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2-22.3 (Manual). Interrogation techniques, approaches, and treatments described in the Manual shall be implemented strictly in accord with the principles, processes, conditions, and limitations the Manual prescribes [emphasis added].
By this language, waterboarding and other harsh interrogation procedures are prohibited by implication because they are not authorized by the Army Field Manual. But like other parts of Obama’s order, this prohibition apparently applies only to persons detained in an armed conflict. As discussed above, we are left to wonder whether detainees grabbed in counterterrorism operations can continue being tortured.
Conclusion
The loopholes in President Obama’s executive order on torture may permit cruel abuses of prisoners to continue, using a legal parlor trick. Labeling detainees the product of counterterrorism operations rather than of armed conflict, or holding detainees in detention facilities operated by entities other than the CIA, may allow government agents and private contractors conforming to the letter of the president’s order to continue practices most would consider torture. The president should close these loopholes or explain to Americans why he won’t.
James Hill is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery, and a clinical assistant professor of radiology at the University of Southern California School of Medicine. The views expressed are solely his own.
Notes[1] ACLU Press Release: President Obama Orders Guantánamo Closed And End To Torture; at
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/38455prs20090122.html?s_src=RSS[2] See: Andy Worthington: The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 759 Detainees in America 's Illegal Prison. Pluto Press, 2007; and: Jeffery Rosen: Voices of Victims (a review of My Guantanamo Diary: The Detainees and the Stories They Told Me, by Mahvish Rukhsana Khan). The New York Times, August 10, 2008, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/books/review/Rosen-t.html?fta=y
[3] Gina Cavallaro: Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1. Army Times, September 30, 2008, at
http//www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w -
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
That article is half a year old. That order to close the prison in one year was signed last week.
sorry about the link.....
-
Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:
And during the Taliban, women had no rights, tehy were stoned for adultery, they had no means for education, they allowed honor killings, etc. etc. etc. etc.
You are fucking dense, if not incredibly stupid.
With regard to the water boarding, the incoming US Attorney General declared Water boarding as torture.
You are a fucking moron.
Change we can believe in.
Obama lets CIA keep controversial renditions tool
|Washington Bureau
January 31, 2009
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-renditions_31jan31,0,2998929.story
WASHINGTON — The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.
But even while dismantling these discredited programs, President Barack Obama left an equally controversial counterterrorism tool intact.
Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the rendition program is poised to play an expanded role because it is the main remaining mechanism—aside from Predator missile strikes—for taking suspected terrorists off the street.The rendition program became a source of embarrassment for the CIA, and a target of international scorn, as details emerged in recent years of botched captures, mistaken identities and allegations that prisoners were turned over to countries where they were tortured.
The European Parliament condemned renditions as an "illegal instrument used by the United States." Prisoners swept up in the program have sued the CIA as well as a subsidiary of Boeing Corp., which is accused of working with the agency on dozens of rendition flights.
But the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration's war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.
The decision underscores the fact that the battle with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups is far from over and that even if the U.S. is shutting down the prisons, it is not done taking prisoners.
"Obviously you need to preserve some tools, you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing legal reasoning behind the decision. "The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice."
One provision in one of Obama's orders appears to preserve the CIA's ability to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects as long as they are not held long-term. The little-noticed provision states that the instructions to close the CIA's secret prison sites "do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."
Obama's decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human-rights groups. Leaders of such organizations said that reflects a sense, even among advocates, that the United States and other nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.
"Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place" for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "What I heard loud and clear from the president's order was that they want to design a system that doesn't result in people being sent to foreign dungeons to be tortured."
In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to re-examine renditions to make sure that they "do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture" or otherwise circumvent human-rights laws and treaties.