[flere-imsaho]

The blog post references a L.A. Times article: Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool - Los Angeles Times

Edit: Having said that, the blog post makes a lot of assumptions that the L.A. Times article treats very differently.

Edit #2: For instance:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Looks like Obama has taken even more behind the scenes shortcuts regarding torture and holding terrorists.

The L.A. Times article's assessment is that Obama's executive order actually limits pretty much everything considerably more than Bush's policy, but keeps open an option for short-term, "transitory" rendition which is, admittedly, a big grey area.

To quote the article:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

Emphasis mine.

"Hot Air", however, takes this statement and transforms it into:

Originally Posted by Hot Air

Obama has had a sudden revelation as President that renditions are more necessary than ever, if the CIA can’t hold these subjects at Gitmo or its own secret sites

Next, a rationale from (supposedly) an Obama Administration source:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

"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 the legal reasoning. "The legal advisors 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."

And not everyone "on the left" is immediately against this:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

"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 -- but that designing that system is going to take some time."

Malinowski said he had urged the Obama administration to stipulate that prisoners could be transferred only to countries where they would be guaranteed a public hearing in an official court. "Producing a prisoner before a real court is a key safeguard against torture, abuse and disappearance," Malinowski said.

Still, intelligence veterans doubt there's a significant place of value in America's policy for renditions going forward:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

CIA veterans involved in renditions characterized the program as important but of limited intelligence-gathering use. It is used mainly for terrorism suspects not considered valuable enough for the CIA to keep, they said.

"The reason we did interrogations [ourselves] is because renditions for the most part weren't very productive," said a former senior CIA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject.

The most valuable intelligence on Al Qaeda came from prisoners who were in CIA custody and questioned by agency experts, the official said. Once prisoners were turned over to Egypt, Jordan or elsewhere, the agency had limited influence over how much intelligence was shared, how prisoners were treated and whether they were later released.

"In some ways, [rendition] is the worst option," the former official said. "If they are in U.S. hands, you have a lot of checks and balances, medics and lawyers. Once you turn them over to another service, you lose control."

Of course, "Hot Air" takes issue with these conclusions:

Originally Posted by Hot Air

Frankly, I think the US does a better job of treating its detainees than anywhere a rendition program would deliver them, but without a Gitmo or CIA holding site, that’s the only way to ensure that we can get any intelligence that will protect the US.

To summarize, here's "Hot Air's listing of interrogation venues in terms of effectiveness:

1. Torture by U.S. at Gitmo/secret CIA holding sites
2. Torture by foreign governments at U.S.'s behest
3. Legal interrogation by U.S. at U.S. sites

Here's CIA veterans' listing of interrogation venues in terms of effectiveness (note they don't mention Gitmo):

1. Legal interrogation by U.S. at U.S. sites
2. Torture by foreign governments at U.S.'s behest

And anyway, the policy is evolving and not final yet:

Originally Posted by L.A. Times

In his executive order on lawful interrogations, Obama created a task force to reexamine 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.

So anyway, read the L.A. Times article, not the blog.