Those curs'd French rendered me from Sudan! Then they, unbelievably, tried and convicted me! Now I waste away in a secret dungeon in the Bastille; once, I was the most feared terrorist in the world!

I'm confused. Have you been wilfully misquoted, as would seem to be addressed in your first few paragraphs? Or did you change your post, which seems to what you're getting at in the final paragraph?

Or maybe my mind is turned to mush like the meatloaf mixture I just put together.

Have you been wilfully misquoted, as would seem to be addressed in your first few paragraphs? Or did you change your post, which seems to what you're getting at in the final paragraph?

Hutchinson changed his post not Hilzoy. The original post accurately quoted Hilzoy but was false. The second post removed the factual inaccuracy, but at the cost of misquoting Hilzoy.

Linkmeister: I don't think I was quoted at all, so I wasn't misquoted. In the original version, he said I made a claim that I did, in fact, make: that rendition, as a legal term, includes extradition; and he said that that was false. In the revised version, he said that I made a claim that I did not make (that stuff about the CIA program being "synonymous with" (??) extradition, if you take away the torture part; and he says that that is false.

I think he just wanted to make the legal mistake go away, and wasn't paying attention to what this did to his more general argument.

Walker: you said it better. ;)

"Never apologize, never explain" is not a good blog policy. It's a pity Hutchinson chose not to correct himself and add a simple apology--such a more gracious thing to have done.

Wow. Wingnuts intentionally misquoting someone to set up a strawman argument. You could knock me over with a sledgehammer.

Ah. Thank you both. I hope the meatloaf comes out as well as your explanations.

Hutchison is a frustrating blogger to read. I can't figure him out. He seems to be in continual reaction to some imagined liberal consensus that sees Obama as a messiah. I don't know why he buys into that right-wing strawman, but there you go.

I refer to him as Buzz Killington.

I hope you'll address his substantive points more thoroughly in another post, because it seems to me that despite correcting the legal error you note, he's pretty confused in general.

So even if the bad guy is Eichman or someone we deem equally worthy of lawless abduction, the lawlessness is OK! cause er.. he/she is bad, because we say so, and others might too.

And also, what kind of renditions, of the legal kind would the CIA be called on to do? If rendition is an OK thing when done legally. Or if extraordinarily, and also for one of our Eichman level bad guys. On the other hand, A duh abba babba dah do...

Let's just say Bush stole people to send them to Egypt for some torture cause, well, cause he wanted to, and on account of they might be someone bad that wanted to hurt Murka. Someone, say as bad as, Michael Moore.

This is fairly typical with wingnuts. When the facts don't fit, play 3 card monte with their context. Rendition, extraordinary rendition, extradition...just keep moving the shells around.

I'm not a law prof and I only skimmed your original post, but I came away with your intended meaning: rendition is not a particular thing, it is just a word.

In fact, we should expect that the Bush Admin would use regular words to disguise their illegal activities. This is the newsspeak we must now deal with. Just because everyone else can revert back to the regular meaning of most words, I guess we can now expect that the Bushies will bash us over the head.

You are being much too kind to Hutchinson.

In your first post about rendition you clearly spelled out that Obama's recent executive orders don't permit either torture OR secret detentions.

Furthermore, the HRW spokesman's quote from the LA Times makes it clear he is not concerned because he trusts Obama to have appropriate protections. He mentions his own recommendation to Obama that prisoners only be sent to countries that will give them a public in official court.

And your Dr Rendition post even more specifically makes the distinction between the recent common interpretation of the word rendition and the older, formal definition.

For Hutchinson to not acknowledge any of that while dismissing your "patently false assertions" is inexcusable.

Just to be clear, while I think Hilzoy is right, Darren L. Hutchinson is not a right-wing wingnut (AFAIK), as one might think after reading this: he's an avowed progressive who wants to keep Obama's feet to the fire. (Or as Jim points out, an avowed progressive who thinks that Obama got a free pass and that Clinton was unfairly attacked.)

Which is to say, whereas the rightwingnut response to the LAT story was "huzzah, Bush was right all along," Prof. Hutchinson's response was "this was not the change I was looking for (even if I wanted Hillary)."

They may look similar at first glance, but I think we need to distinguish Hutchinsonian (ahem) critique--which is offered in good faith--from the bad faith critiques and celebrations of the rightwingnuts. (Although, to be clear, I spend a lot more time on rightwing sites than I do reading Dissenting Justice. Did you know that the ACLU is out to destroy America? The things you learn on Newsbusters, et al.)

I don't care whether he was criticizing from the right or the left.

It is possible to be legitimately concerned at the idea of continuing to use extraordinary renditions, but his attack on hilzoy and other progressives who trust Obama to do it right was not made in good faith.

Perhaps instead of saying "trust Obama to do it right," it would have been more accurate to say "are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt given his other statements and executive orders."

Prof. Hutchinson's response was "this was not the change I was looking for (even if I wanted Hillary)."

I'm sure then he's looking at Obama objectively, as well as Obama supporters.

tanstaafl, besides having a good, Heinleinian name, also has a point: Hutchinson's post was obtuse to the point of possibly deliberate obtuseness, and so I may have been wrong to say that his critique was done in good faith.

I withdraw my argument re: Hutchinson's good faith (which I wrote without having read tanstaafl's first post).

(Also, just to be clear, my original defense of his good faith was not directed towards Hilzoy: she may think this post was a little too much "Someone Is Wrong On The Internets," but I thought it was just enough--it sets out very clearly where he's wrong. (And for more of that, you can check the comments between Hilzoy and Hutchinson over at Obsidian Wings on this same post.))

My desire to have an ongoing critique may be part of my current desire to be continually building convincing/converting political arguments (that is, arguments capable of stripping people away from their habitual voting/thinking practices by demonstrating that their issues and interests are better represented/discussed elsewhere), but in my rush to defend critique in general, I chose a rather bad critique in particular to defend.

Which is a long way of saying you're right.

I think I agree with nickleby (though I've got some lingering GOP astroturf suspicions left over from the P.U.M.A. campaign) above: Hutchinson has unfairly criticized Hilzoy on this point, but this error was part of a good faith effort to insure that the Obama Administration lives up to the expectations of progressives.

And, for the record, it seems to me that Hilzoy respected this possibility whereas others (in this comment thread and elsewhere) have crossed a line.

I was thinking about following up to find out the overarching point Hutchinson was trying to make when it dawned on me: he likely doesn't have one.

With so much wrong in his rebuttal argument including its premise, in the revision anyways, you'd think he would have just apologized for his mistake rather than falsely attribute statements.

I'm really wondering if all of us folks on the left are still suffering from a little PTSD from 8 years of Bush. I mean think about it -- what else do we have to compare Obama to from recent history. Only GWB, and the pathological lying, obfuscation, and every other form of Douchebaggery from the right. Every action Obama has made so far on torture has been unequivical in saying torture of any kind will not be done on his watch. I'm hardly an expert on the fineries of international law relating to how prisoners are dealt with, but it took me about 2 seconds to spot the sloppiness of the LA Times article and it's implications. After watching BO for two years, does anyone really think he would be so devious and stupid as to try and treat prisoners anywhere near the criminal way the Bushies have. And this extends to a lot of so called critique from "progressives" on other issues as well. The fact is, I can't think of any other president in my lifetime, that has so far followed on what he said he would do from the campaign. And Obama has never claimed to be a "progressive", or that he will necessarily install progressive policies, whatever they are. What I see is someone who thinks things thru as to what will work, and considers the politics, to the extent the politics will allow it to be implemented, and how much.

I don't agree with everything he has said he wants to do, or the tactics he uses to get his way.(IE, a little too much footsie with wingnuts IMO). And he should be held accountable for significant straying when he does, and he certainly will being human and all. But it would be nice for folks, moi' included, to not compare him to Bush because there is no comparison to be made as a person. NONE, at least thus far. End of sermon.

hilzoy, this definitely rises above the "something is wrong on the internets" level to the "somebody has deliberately and insidiously misconstrued my meaning and then my actual words to defame me on the internets" level.

...

which, admittedly is not that much higher a standard, but still.

i hope you have emailed and/or commented @ the professor and set him straight.

skippy: eh, I have a thick skin for criticism. (An overreaction to a stunningly unpopular childhood.) He has commented over at Obsidian Wings, in what would be this thread, if there were here. I didn't really see his point, as I said in my response to him. It sounds as though he didn't know about the norm about not changing posts.

This is a little delayed but more in response to nickleby than the other comments since.

I guess I am not willing to give Hutchinson the benefit of the doubt because Hilzoy's earlier posts convinced me that this isn't a case of saying "we like Obama, so it's time to trust him".

Hilzoy gave specific reasons why the word "rendition" or even the term "extraordinary rendition" don't automatically have the same implications they have had during the Bush years.

Plus, he gave specific examples of Executive Orders that Obama has already signed that would reign in the most dangerous aspects of renditions and gave examples of why some type of renditions might still be necessary (i.e. Erlichmann's trial and imprisonment in Israel) that some people may find troubling but that others, equally committed to human rights, may find acceptable.

Hutchinson is free to continue to be skeptical of Obama's good intentions on this issue. Though I think his biases from the primary race may be showing through here, I am willing to give Hutchinson the benefit of that doubt on that.

What he is not free to do is dismiss the arguments on the other side as patently false without addressing them honestly. Particularly when in doing so, he feeds the conservative meme that liberals are engaging in a double-standard.

P.S. In reading Hutchinson article in detail, he does support his arguments based on the need for prior judicial review. With respect to incidents like the one that lead to 26 CIA agents being indicted in Italy, he has a point. But what if we had actionable intelligence about Bin Laden or one of his close associates being in Somalia? or Sudan?

I'm with skippy. You're being very gracious, hilzoy, but the guy is being patently dishonest for the purpose of trying to save face. Not admirable.

Hizoy - you posted this elsewhere, and I wrote a lengthy response. But I also generally responded to the "form" over "substance" spirit of your arguments: Elevating Form Over Substance: Liberals Now Argue that They Oppose the Label of Bush's Program, Not the Substance

There was nothing false about my arguments and nothing sinister about my edit. Hilzoy's arguments were referring to a generic dictionary word called "rendition," but legal arguments contesting or asserting the legality of "rendition" cannot rest on a dictionary definition.

When I used the word "rendition" and distinguished it from extradition, I was specifically referring to the CIA's actual policy, which is the only relevant information in the debate over Obama's reported continuation of rendition. Generically, rendition is similar to extradition; so Hizoy is right on this. But we are not debating generics; we are debating concrete programs. In practice, rendition under the CIA policies of Bush and, perhaps Obama, look nothing like extradition -- except both forefully remove someone from a country.

I edited my post to clarify that my response and my arguments related to the CIA's practice of rendition - not the generic term. But because Hilzoy refuses to acknowledge that his/her generic usage of the term is irrelevant to the legality of Bush's or Obama's policies, he/she instead tries to imply foul play on my behalf.

Interestingly, Hoizloy has spent a lot of time focusing on these labels, but not as much time analyzing the actual content of Obama's alleged rendition plan, the Bush polcies, and the objections of human rights organizations that I have quoted several times. Apparently, the labels are all that matter. If we called torture by another name, would it suddenly become permissible?

PS: I really do not have the time to edit this post. Apologies for any technical errors.

PS: I really do not have the time to edit this post.

Well, there's your problem, Sparky. Hasn't not taking the time to edit -- and, even more, to actually think through what you're saying -- gotten you in enough trouble?

legal arguments contesting or asserting the legality of "rendition" cannot rest on a dictionary definition

If Prof. Hutchinson will pay me my usual hourly rate, I'd be happy to provide him with, say, 50 or so judicial opinions relying on dictionary definitions to construe terms like "rendition." It is a well-known maxim of statutory construction that words are to be given theri ordinary meanings unless the context somehow plainly requires otherwise.

A bad faith argument from a conaservative Web site, endorsed -- his mealymouthed disclaimers about just linking notwithstanding -- by the Instahack? You don't say!

I don't know why he buys into that right-wing strawman

Based on my experience here, I've concluded that if movement conservatives can't make strawman arguments, they can't make any arguments at all.

I stand corrected: Hutchinson's is not a conservative Web site.

Reynolds, however, is still a hack.

nterestingly, Hoizloy has spent a lot of time focusing on these labels, but not as much time analyzing the actual content of Obama's alleged rendition plan, the Bush polcies, and the objections of human rights organizations that I have quoted several times. Apparently, the labels are all that matter. If we called torture by another name, would it suddenly become permissible

Funny there Hutchinson, after reading this from you, I would say you are doing exactly what you are accusing Hilzoy of doing, relying on labels for an argument, or form over substance.. You hear the word Rendition and clutch your pearls and holler Obama is going to be just like Bush. You argue like a republican.

don't apologize. I love "Someone Is Wrong On The Internets!" stuff when someone is proven to be wrong and dishonest.

Also it's not just fun for twits like me. The removal of a false claim of fact (on this history of the word "rendition") without admitting error should be severely punished by public humiliation.

Rea - I understand that opinions sometimes resort to dictionaries, but they cannot determine the legality of rendition. So I will keep my 50 bucks! Using a dictionary to determine what a particular word in an entire statute might mean is one thing. Using a dictionary to determine the legality of an entire practice governed by a series of executive orders and international law is another thing.

No - Stuck. I am not endorsing the tyranny of labels. I commented on that claim in my own blog; unfortunately, I do not have time to repeat the arguments (which are now in three threads). Good day.

Rea - I understand that opinions sometimes resort to dictionaries, but they cannot determine the legality of rendition. So I will keep my 50 bucks!

What, judicial opinions can't determine the legality of rendition? And you think $50 bucks for finding you 50 opinions is an appropriate rate for an appellate attorney with 30 years' experience? :(

No - Stuck. I am not endorsing the tyranny of labels.

I didn't say you were endorsing the "tyranny of labels", I accused you of actually using said "tyranny".

I did read Obama's executive order and fail to see what you call "torture by another name". It was a detailed account of the definition of rendition and it's history that gave no hint of obfuscation for a continuation of Bush policies. With the only semblance of similarity being use of the word rendition. And further that Hilzoy's analysis simply pointed this out, and added some of her own research to confirm her hypothesis, which, I might add, was similar to that of other liberals as well.

I edited my post to clarify that my response and my arguments related to the CIA's practice of rendition - not the generic term.

Except for one problem: the article that Hilzoy was reacting to did not make the distinction that you're making, which was her point. So you're taking her argument that there are, in fact, different forms of rendition, and claiming that she's only talking about CIA rendition when she clearly isn't because the article she's discussing isn't sticking with that definition, either.

Really, you're just digging yourself in deeper by insisting that we're the ones who misunderstood what Hilzoy was saying and you're the only person who understood what she was really saying when even Hilzoy herself points that that it was not what she was saying. You should probably quit while you can still salvage some dignity.

And I agree that the CIA should be watched closely to ensure they don't keep up with bad habits, and with what Obama does as well. But until there is some shred of real evidence in his actions or rhetoric that points to mischief, I recommend a professor sized Chill Pill.

Really, you're just digging yourself in deeper by insisting that we're the ones who misunderstood what Hilzoy was saying and you're the only person who understood what she was really saying when even Hilzoy herself points that that it was not what she was saying. You should probably quit while you can still salvage some dignity.

Yes - I will try to emulate your objectivity and dignity. Seriously, I never said that I was the only one who understood her and you did not. And I think you need to take a closer look at the article -- which actually distinguishes Obama and Bush by pointing out several times that Obama, unlike Bush, has ordered all interrogators not to use torture, not to send people away for torture, and that he has ordered the closure of the CIA prisons. This is precisely the distinctions that Hilz talks about in her post. I think a lot of the pushback against the article is, therefore, unwarranted. The article never says that Obama is doing the exact same thing as Bush. Instead, the author actually distinguishes the two.