Human Rights Watch: Rendition is WRONG! Oh, Obama's doing it....OK, then. Carry on....

Under President Bush, the USA was vilified and condemned over the CIA practice of rendition in which agents turn detainees over to authorities in their home country for interrogation.This resulted in harsher interrogations than might be found under the US custody. The Europeans screamed hysterically about the use of their countries for either transport or custody. Apparently, rendition is only proper when used by Democrats. There was no outcry by any of the supposed watchdog groups or by Europeans when rendition was initiated under President Clinton.

And now, under The ONE, rendition is now considered a legitimate activity. Since GTMO will be closing soon, rendition might be the ONLY activity allowed. Too bad the terrorists won't be in our custody....I understand that certain countries have harsher methods than waterboarding.

Here's a round up of the reactions by the Blogosphere to the ABSOLUTE FLIP FLOP by the anti-war/anti-torture groups:

The LA Times (of all newspapers) starts the ball rolling with the revelation that "civil rights" groups don't care if OBAMA abuses the terrorists. It's only a bad idea if Republicans do it.

There is a Suitably Flip advertisement of a new movie.

Professor Darren Hutchinson calls out Human Rights Watch on their hypocrisy.

Da Tech Guy seconds that opinion.

The Corner at National Review Online does a nice Before and After of the positions held by Human Rights Watch.

Gord Tulk, a commenter at Small Dead Animals puts into perspective: So putting them in the responsible care of US governemnt people where they are given some degree of habeaous corpus at Gitmo and perhaps the odd waterboarding is a huge violation, but kidnapping them secretly and shipping them to some foreign country where they will suffer unspeakable torture and probably death is okay.

A Picture is Worth...

...A Thousand Words.

Or in this case, 1,200,000,000,000,000. And those words are "DOLLARS."

A certain Suitably Flip blogger also illustrates what you can get for this amount of moolah.

Change has come to America. Where, once, the "prohibitive" cost of the Iraq War was debated endlessly (as long as a camera was present), we now find it perfectly legitimate to spend TWICE as much with less debate than it takes to dedicate a Post Office. Apparently, all it takes for principles to "change" is for an election to occur.

Spending in defense of the USA is wrong. Spending in defense of re-election is good. Killing Terrorists - Bad. Buying Pork - Good. Paying Back Terrorists - Bad. Paying Back Special Interests - Very Good: Doug Ross: By the Numbers, spells out where the money has gone.

Obama wants to "preserve jobs" with this pork bill. He wants to ensure that only US products and services are used. (Hmm, we bailed out GM. They build cars all over the world, some of which are sold here. Is that subsidizing foreign workers?) Let's see what happens, according to Doug Ross: $1,646,000,000,000 ($1.646 trillion): the approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms", which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act. (Obama wants to be FDR, but is going to be the next Hoover.)