In what seems to be your standard fawning profile of CIA chief Leon Panetta, SF Chronicle Washington Bureau correspondent Zachary Coile notes Panetta's response to critics of "rendition."
Panetta has drawn some criticism from the left for saying he would continue renditions of terrorist suspects to foreign countries for questioning, as long as there were assurances the detainees would not be tortured. He said Wednesday that Obama plans to limit the use of renditions.
"If it's someone we are interested in, there is no purpose to rendering anyone - particularly if it's a high-value target," he said.
Nothing too noteworthy there. The controversy over rendition has a lot of nuances and there is a genuine dispute amongst civil rights advocates as to whether the Obama administration's views on rendition are as heinous as were those of the Bush administration.
It is indeed troubling what comes out in the following graf:
Panetta reiterated his view that the United States does not need to use waterboarding or other aggressive interrogation tactics to get information from suspects. The president has the power to order the use of harsh methods, but Panetta wouldn't recommend it.
Okay, what seems a little unclear here is whether Coile asked Panetta if the President has the power to order torture, or Panetta simply volunteered this as an expansion of the remark on the lack of a need to torture.
Last I checked, the President can claim all he wants the power to torture someone, but in exercising it, he would then be guilty committing a war crime.
So, did I miss a staff meeting or something? I understand Obama has made it clear as late as Tuesday night that "we don't torture," but is that just because he's choosing not to, or because it's plainly illegal?
What is Panetta talking about?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment