You fear that Obama (or rther, his gov't) may, unhappily, continue some of the worst abuses of the previous administtration. I fear that you may be correct. But, I like to think of it as a slowing of the great ship of state. Hopefully, over time, the juggernaut will slow, and perhaps even turn in time. Hopefully the lookouts in the media, and the public have better eyes than the chappies on lookout on the Titanic. Congrats on your new book.

With stories like this, is it any wonder the print and television media are distrusted?

That said, are there any creditable signs the new Administration is pursuing the same idiocy as its predecessor? The stupidity over the stimulus has been sucking a lot of oxygen and I haven't seen or heard much else.

Chapter and verse. In addition, as Hilzoy notes, 'rendition' is a very broad term- the act of transferring an individual across jurisdictions- also includes extradition. Surely there is nothing untoward about this. As to the hypothetical, there are clearly messy philisophical and legal issues about a), b) or c) but that's what makes it a good hypothetical. It illustrates the messiness of the real world where governance decisions exist.

Long time reader, first time poster, sad I can't make Boston this weekend.

In your fact scenario, you posit Americans going into foreign states to apprehend and transport foreign individuals. I understood rendition to mean the deportation of individuals who touched US soil (Maher Arar changing planes in New York, finding himself in Syria)?

After reading your work for 18 months or so, the last 10 days have been quite wonderful. But please stay vigilant.

I generally accept the justification for caution that Greenwald encourages in interpreting the LA Times article on the claims of Obama continuing the bush rendition polices. That said, I find his last scenario (involving the hypothetical capture of Osama in Pakistan and his 'rendition' to the U.S. for interrogation/trial) to be another variant on the contrived 'ticking time bomb' argument used to justify all torture and rendition. Furthermore, the term 'rendition', was invented by the CIA and the government as a code word which has a specific translation to 'secretly sending someone to Syria to be tortured in absolute secrecy and with full deniability'. Finally, the most important way to limit abuse of human rights and domestic and international laws regarding the treatment of prisoners is to require that it be public. Thus if you decide you have to 'render' someone you do it publicly. If you decide you need to torture someone, it should voted on by Congress, administered by the 'Torturer-In-Chief', and broadcast worldwide. This is the only way to make certain that those who advocate law breaking feel they have a good enough case to implicate themselves before doing it. The minute you allow 'secret exceptions' as Obama has already apparently done with 'enhanced interrogation techniques', you will inevitably have abuse. And any statements such as 'America doesn't torture' become meaningless without the endless list of allowed exceptions. Transparency and accountability is the key, and I do not think Obama is up to this sort of meaningful transparency.

I can only think of one individual who was renditioned outside of the WOT - Noriega.

Wasn't that a clusterhose from start to finish?

That sounds very much to me like John Kerry citing "Richard Nixon's War in Viet Nam."

Comments, responses, Glenn? Is there any denying that renditions were undertaken in prior administrations, most particularly the Clinton Administration?

Will any more info on that be forthcoming?

You raise interesting points for legal minds to ponder, and let's hope they do.

Hypotheticals, though, may not be the best way to approach the situation. The "ticking time bomb" hypothetical gets in the way of every discussion about torture carried on with a Bush apologist. Many of us are sick of hearing this hypothetical used to justify Bush's torture regime.

One thing, though, you might focus on is the difference between rendition as such and the "extraordinary rendition" committed by the Bushites.

Grace and peace.

I agree "in principle". BUT aren't you in effect posing the "ticking time bomb" scenario, Glenn?

Hardly. What makes the ticking time bomb hypothetical so stupid is that it is virtually certain not to happen and, if it did, would be so rare that you wouldn't want to make policy based on it.

How is that true for my hypothetical? You think it's extremely unlikely? Which parts? And what parts of what I asked be assumed do you think is inapplicable to the OBL case (other than the U.N. veto, which hasn't been tried)?

It's about fairness. It's about equal opportunity. It's about extending the rights previously afforded only a small minority, to all citizens. Y'know, like the the Bush wiretapping program. Time was, under the original law, only certain people would be graced by application of the wiretapping law. But now, everybody gets to participate!

Greenwald says:

"Hardly. What makes the ticking time bomb hypothetical so stupid is that it is virtually certain not to happen and, if it did, would be so rare that you wouldn't want to make policy based on it.

How is that true for my hypothetical? You think it's extremely unlikely? Which parts? And what parts of what I asked be assumed do you think is inapplicable to the OBL case (other than the U.N. veto, which hasn't been tried)?"

The point is not how ridiculous your hypothetical is, but rather that once you allow for exceptions you open the door to endless lawbreaking. One man's 'serious' hypothetical is another man's absurdity. If you want to legalize illegal rendition, then write it into a treaty complete with all the use cases. And then demand that in any case, it be done freaking publicly! The purpose of secrecy is invariably to break the law and avoid being held accountable!

There was a Daily Telegraph article about rendition today too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html

According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed, with the new administration deciding it needs to retain some devices in Mr Bush's anti-terror arsenal amid continued threats to US national security.

"Obviously you need to preserve some tools – you still have to go after the bad guys," an administration official told the Los Angeles Times.

"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."

Section 2 (g) of the order, appears to allow the US authorities to continue detaining and interrogating terror suspects as long as it does not hold them for long periods. It reads: "The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis."

The revelation will cause anger in Europe, where several cases of abuse or mistaken identity were revealed during the Bush administration.

It seems to be as slapdash as the LA Times article in that it does not differentiate between rendition and extraordinary rendition.