Nobel Peace Prize winner continues Rendition/torture.

[boyntonstu]

I would not have imagined giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a person who continues Bush's policy of Rendition (torture).

How do you feel about Obama's rendition policy?

President Obama has recently ratified continuation of the U.S. rendition policy -- removal of terrorist suspects by extra-legal means to a foreign country for interrogation. This was intended to allow prisoners to be tortured in many nations, Syria, Egypt, Latvia, Jordan, Morocco, Yemen, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Pakistan, among them in a process facilitated by Great Britain, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Indonesia, and others. However, Obama's is not the Bush/Cheney version of rendition. The President has assured us that interrogations will be monitored to guarantee that torture does not occur.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barton..._b_269833.html

and



The typically sterile term "rendition" is now inextricably linked with torture in the public mind, as well it should be. While there may unfortunately be a legal difference, there is no moral or practical difference between the United States directly torturing an individual under American control, and the US transferring an individual to another nation where they will be tortured by a foreign government.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-v..._b_162927.html


Now children can you say "extra-legal"?

 

[Southwind17]

I would not have imagined giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a person who continues Bush's policy of Rendition (torture).

How do you feel about Obama's rendition policy?

Allow me to answer with a question: Out of interest, how many family members/friends, exactly, have you lost due to organized terrorist atrocities?

 

[DC]

Allow me to answer with a question: Out of interest, how many family members/friends, exactly, have you lost due to organized terrorist atrocities?

and this makes torture ok?

 

[boyntonstu]

allow me to answer with a question: Out of interest, how many family members/friends, exactly, have you lost due to organized terrorist atrocities?

6,000,000

 

[Peephole]

Yup, this is why I don't support giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama, if he can't deliver on this promise, how does the Nobel Prize Committee know that he's serious about some of his other policies?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It odd seems to me that he's been given the 'gong' based on what he is expected to achieve rather than what he has actually achieved to date. Wouldn't there be other people that have actually managed to envision, facilitate, manage and bring about some change rather than just represent hopes and dreams?
No disrespect intended by the way.

 

[Peephole]

It odd seems to me that he's been given the 'gong' based on what he is expected to achieve rather than what he has actually achieved to date. Wouldn't there be other people that have actually managed to envision, facilitate, manage and bring about some change rather than just represent hopes and dreams?
No disrespect intended by the way.

The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee - four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.

"Some people say - and I understand it - 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/nobel-prize-to-obama-defe_n_316098.html

They've done this in the past with Tutu and Gore/the IPCC. I actually agree that it's better to encourage causes than to reward people for a "mission accomplished."

 

[WildCat]

I would not have imagined giving a Nobel Peace Prize to a person who continues Bush's policy of Rendition (torture).

Actually Bush merely continued Clinton's rendition policy, so you can feel better about it because you can say "Obama continues ther Clinton admin's policy" and feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Peephole]

With the difference that at least part of Bush's extraordinary rendition policy was aimed at temporarily shipping people to countries to get them tortured, while Clinton extradited people to countries that have terrible human rights records.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee - four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

They lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.

"Some people say - and I understand it - 'Isn't it premature? Too early?' Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, told the AP. "It is now that we have the opportunity to respond - all of us."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/09/nobel-prize-to-obama-defe_n_316098.html

They've done this in the past with Tutu and Gore/the IPCC. I actually agree that it's better to encourage causes than to reward people for a "mission accomplished."

I'll remember that next time I'm tendering for projects.When they ask me to outline my achievements to date, I can tell them "Nothing so far, but I have good intentions. Can I have my money now please?".

Seriously 'though, I do get what your saying and agree up to a point. But was there nobody anywhere that had actually done something?

 

[WildCat]

With the difference that at least part of Bush's extraordinary rendition policy was aimed at temporarily shipping people to countries to get them tortured, while Clinton extradited people to countries that have terrible human rights records.

Where they were often tortured and executed.

 

[Dancing David]

Allow me to answer with a question: Out of interest, how many family members/friends, exactly, have you lost due to organized terrorist atrocities?

Not relevant the habeus corpus applies to all people, the law in COTUS says 'no person'. And that is as it should be, I am upset Obama has not declared it null and void for rendition.

 

[Dancing David]

Actually Bush merely continued Clinton's rendition policy, so you can feel better about it because you can say "Obama continues ther Clinton admin's policy" and feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

I don't like it regardless of the origins, Eisenhower? Truman? FDR? Probably farther back than that. It is wrong by COTUS and should be stopped.

 

[boyntonstu]

I don't like it regardless of the origins, Eisenhower? Truman? FDR? Probably farther back than that. It is wrong by COTUS and should be stopped.

COITUS?

We are screwed!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

COITUS?

We are screwed!

LOL
Made my day!

 

[Southwind17]

and this makes torture ok?

So no family/friends of yours either. So easy to take the moral high ground when you're essentially unaffected isn't it.

6,000,000

I think many people would find this response somewhat fickle - possibly offensive.

 

[Dragoonster]

So no family/friends of yours either. So easy to take the moral high ground when you're essentially unaffected isn't it.

So since there are friends of victims of every crime, every criminal should get habeus corpus suspended and be sent to prisons where they're tortured?

 

[DC]

So no family/friends of yours either. So easy to take the moral high ground when you're essentially unaffected isn't it.


I think many people would find this response somewhat fickle - possibly offensive.

so again, loosing friends and family in a terror atack gives you a right for revange and torture?

so the Afghan terrorists are OK to behead someone aslong they lost friends and family in the afghanistan war?
or does it only count for us.

 

[Southwind17]

So since there are friends of victims of every crime, every criminal should get habeus corpus suspended and be sent to prisons where they're tortured?

Not quite a measured view, I'd say, probably indicative of why you think the way you do.

so again, loosing friends and family in a terror atack gives you a right for revange and torture?

Ditto.

so the Afghan terrorists are OK to behead someone aslong they lost friends and family in the afghanistan war?
or does it only count for us.

Ditto. Do you see the partiality your demonstrating here?

 

[DC]

Not quite a measured view, I'd say, probably indicative of why you think the way you do.


Ditto.


Ditto. Do you see the partiality your demonstrating here?

he is only a terrorist in our eyes, in his view, your guys are the terrorist and he has a right to torture your guys because they invaded his country and his family was killed.