Is it hypocrisy if it was all just partisan posturing? If it was all just an act?

Moe predicted yesterday that the bulk of the Left that protested the utilization of “rendition” i.e. the transfer of terriorism suspects by the United States to another country for detention, interrogation or both, by the Bush Administration as a tool in the War on Terror would not be bothered at all if used by the Obama Administration.

Some, like this sad embarrassment here, would all of a sudden discover the nuance that failed to make an appearance when the President’s name was George W. Bush and try to justify that which they claimed could never be justified.

Human Rights Watch is the next example of situational ethics come to life.

The Obama Administration, most likely with the active co-operation of its Fourth Estate handmaidens waited until Superbowl Weekend (perfect timing to ensure this vanishes down the memory hole) to release the news that, after two years of Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats campaigning against it, after Left-Wing Hollywood released a movie starring A-list actors and actresses condemning it, after journalists and activists from the Left to the Far Left listing it as an impeachable practice that forever stains America’s honor,  after all that … the practice of rendition would be continued by the Obama Presidency.

In fact, according to the Los Angeles Times, one of the major house organs of the Democratic Party;

… the Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.

The article goes on to note;

The decision to preserve the program did not draw major protests, even among human rights groups. Leaders of such organizations attribute that to a sense that nations need certain tools to combat terrorism.

“Under limited circumstances, there is a legitimate place” for renditions, said Tom Malinowski, the Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “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 – but that designing that system is going to take some time.”

So now, after eight years of being derided as an illegitimate, immoral, illegal, inhumane practice, all of a sudden rendition is back to being what it was during the Clinton Administration which birthed it; an essential, respectable tool in the War on Terror and keeping the American people safe.

Note that back when the President was not a Democrat, April last year to be exact, Human Rights Watch had this to say about rendition;

The US government should:

  • Repudiate the use of rendition to torture as a counterterrorism tactic and permanently discontinue the CIA’s rendition program;
  • Disclose the identities, fate, and current whereabouts of all persons detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody by the CIA since 2001, including detainees who were rendered to Jordan;
  • Repudiate the use of “diplomatic assurances” against torture and ill-treatment as a justification for the transfer of a suspect to a place where he or she is at risk of such abuse;
  • Make public any audio recordings or videotapes that the CIA possesses of interrogations of detainees rendered by the CIA to foreign custody;
  • Provide appropriate compensation to all persons arbitrarily detained by the CIA or rendered to foreign custody (emphasis added).

My … how things have changed.

Note that now, all of a sudden, it is acceptable for the US Government to take diplomatic assurances (how else is the US going to ensure that the people it hands over to a foreign government are not subjected to soggy cornflakes, fake menstrual blood {cue Andrew Sullivan shrieking} and loud Britney Spears music?) as justification for “rendering” prisoners over to foreign authorities.

Let’s be honest here; Human Rights Watch, like every other “human rights” organization that has been caterwauling for the last eight years, like the so-called NOW (National Organization for (Left-Wing) Women), the NAACP, the ACLU, every single environmental organization cited positively in the MSM, does not care about Human Rights any more so than the NOW cares about women, the NAACP cares about Civil Rights, the ACLU cares about the Bill of Rights, the NEA cares about education, etc. These organizations are every bit about the bottomline as any of the “evil” corporations/industry the Left have made into the boogie-man and a hundred times more partisan.

This is not a secret; NOW has been open about the fact that it could care less about women when it came to the defense of Bill Clinton after landing like a ton of bricks on Clarence Thomas on mere hearsay. The NAACP spending more money on character assassination campaigns against black conservatives than it does in monitoring White Supremacist groups is as clear an indication as it gets of where their priorities lie.

So it obviously is not hypocrisy for Human Rights Watch to be okay with rendition under a Democratic President (Clinton and Obama) and pretend to be unhappy with it when the President is wearing an R. It’s not as if they have been keeping it a secret that they really don’t care about human rights, it’s all an act – partisan posturing for political and financial advantage.

And any Republican who takes them seriously should be considered a certified idiot.