The American Pundit

But of course. Barack Obama was never interested in actually ending the program, just paying lip service to left-wing special interests. This way he can pretend that he’s keeping the country safe without using the methods, while reaping the security benefits of actually continuing them.

It gives the false impression that left-wing, Kumbaya crap works in keeping the country safe. You know, as opposed to those evil tactics used by George Bush…that will continue to be used anyway.

The administration officials, who announced the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.

“The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent over overseas,” said one administration official, adding that no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive interrogations…

“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.

She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.

The Obama task force proposed improved monitoring of treatment of prisoners sent to other countries, but Ms. Singh said the usual method of such monitoring — visits from American or allied consular officials — had also been ineffective. A Canadian consular official visited Mr. Arar several times, but the prisoner was too frightened to tell him about the torture, according to a Canadian investigation of the case.

So basically the Obama Administration is excusing (or at least attempting to excuse) its hypocrisy by promising that the detainees won’t be subjected to torture. Except that, er, the whole point of rendition is to have foreign countries provide pressure to the detainees that wouldn’t be considered legal here. Which, according to the left, is tantamount to torture, considering that tactics considered legal here have even been described as such.

If the purpose of rendition won’t be to have plausible deniability when morally reprehensible pressure gets applied, why not just keep them here? Why send them overseas to be subjected to the same interrogation methods they’d be subjected to here? As Allahpundit says:

Maybe The One wants rendered detainees to think they’re in for a rougher time from foreign agents, whose intimidating reputation might be enough to soften them up. But if that’s the case, how is rendition substantially different from, say, the CIA’s empty threat to harm Khaled Sheikh Mohammed’s kids? If fear is torture, isn’t the mere threat of harsh treatment implicit in rendition a form of torture too?

Yeah, that whole fiasco is a distraction from Obama’s falling polling numbers and failing health care plan, too. Who honestly believes that Obama’s sending detainees overseas to be subjected to, say, Jordan’s interrogation methods, but he’s really outraged over empty threats made towards the man responsible for 9/11? It’s a convenient excuse to turn the public’s attention away from socialized health care.