Rendition Issue is Resolved, For Now

by | Columns

There has been a good deal of controversy over renditions — moving captured terrorists to countries where they might be tortured. Human-rights activists have complained that this has led to abuses, and the European Parliament has gone so far as to condemn renditions as “an illegal instrument used by the United States.”

But under executive orders issued recently by President Barack Obama, it is clear that the CIA, while no longer imprisoning detainees indefinitely, will retain the authority to move them as necessary. This is very definitely a step in the right direction.

Under the Bush administration, the problem of what to do with accused terrorists was a constant issue. Obviously, they couldn’t simply be turned loose to possibly resume plotting attacks against the United States. At the same time, trying them for conventional crimes was often impossible because the evidence of their culpability couldn’t be disclosed without revealing vital intelligence sources. So they were simply imprisoned without the conventional rights to a fair trial or an opportunity to confront their accusers.

This was obviously open to serious constitutional objections, and these objections have now prevailed. One possible solution was to return them to their native countries, which could deal with them as they wished. But it was not always possible to be sure that they wouldn’t be subjected to torture, or otherwise abused, in their homelands. So the tension has continued, and there has been a lively interest in the policy that the Obama administration would adopt.

Now, that question has been answered. Terrorists will not be held indefinitely in American prisons. Instead, the Bush administration’s rendition policy will remain an option, though presumably, efforts will be made to ensure that prisoners moved to other countries will not be abused.

As an anonymous Obama administration official told a reporter, “Obviously, you need to preserve some tools. (Rendition) is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice.”

Moreover, the new rules do not prohibit the CIA from holding prisoners “on a short-term, transitory basis.” In other words, while terrorists are not to be imprisoned in the United States indefinitely, they can be detained and perhaps even interrogated here pending their transfer to foreign custody.

Thus far, even human-rights activists have been cautiously cordial toward the new policy. Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, told the Los Angeles Times that “under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions. “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.” Fair enough.

Resolving the problems involved in this matter of terrorists has been difficult and probably isn’t over yet. Obviously, we must abide by our own constitutional provisions. But, equally obvious, we cannot allow terrorists committed to our destruction to go about their business uninterrupted. The policies described above strike a reasonable balance between individual rights and our obligation to protect our country.

*****

This article originally appeared on Townhall.com on Feb 03, 2009

Author

  • William A. Rusher (1923–2011), publisher of National Review (1957–1988), was a leading conservative spokesman, columnist, and author. He helped draft Barry Goldwater for the 1964 GOP nomination, shaping the party’s future. A Princeton and Harvard Law graduate, he served in WWII, worked in law, and advised the U.S. Senate. In 1989, he became a Distinguished Fellow at the Claremont Institute and remained active in conservative circles until his passing in 2011.

    View all posts

Recent Articles

Justice Clarence Thomas Reflects on Progressivism, April 15, 2026

Clarence Thomas — full remarks on progressivism, its foundations, history, and impact from his appearance at University of Texas at Austin: “Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao were all intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural...

Rusher’s Wise, Vital Voice at National Review

“Bill Rusher is every bit as vital to National Review as I am,” William F. Buckley informed the audience at the magazine’s 20th anniversary dinner in 1975. “Tonight he has been trenchant, which he always is; and diplomatic, which usually he isn’t. In contrast to his...

Conservatism v. Progressivism

Who We Are: What is Conservatism? Conservatives in America seek to conserve the political inheritance of our Founders. That inheritance is a system of governance premised on the unchanging nature and God-given sovereignty, equality,...

A Model of Political Effectiveness: How Rusher Did It

William Rusher strengthened the conservative movement as an energizing leader, a formidable debater, an incisive columnist, and an engaged mentor who made things happen.  His success in these multiple roles makes his career a rich lesson in political...

Quotes on Progressivism: Definitions and Distinctions

Gathered and prepared by David Frisk “What, then, is progressivism? … we can think of it as an argument to progress, or to move beyond, the political principles of the American founding. It is an argument to enlarge vastly the scope of national government for the...

The Quotable Bill Rusher Part 2: From His Books

Special Counsel (1968) “… a steady diet of political infighting tends to coarsen, and ultimately to cheapen, most participants. They approach politics as reasonably honorable citizens, and by imperceptible degrees it sucks them into its vortex. The plainly right...