noun

1. a performance of a musical composition or a dramatic role etc.; "they heard a live rendition of three pieces by Schubert"

2. an explanation of something that is not immediately obvious; "the edict was subject to many interpretations"; "he annoyed us with his interpreting of parables"; "often imitations are extended to provide a more accurate rendition of the child's intended meaning" [syn: interpretation]

3. handing over prisoners to countries where torture is allowed

4. the act of interpreting something as expressed in an artistic performance; "her rendition of Milton's verse was extraordinarily moving"

taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rendition

Now I'm sure a little while ago number 3 wouldn't have been there, the fact that there is a 4 after what I'd consider a more recent definition is scarily newspeak.

typical, you don't want someone to know something? Raise a law to stop them finding out and say it's to protect them. Maybe the HMRC should do that so every time they lose a cd they can block the media and say it's in the publics interest not to know?

My 1989 dictionary lists rendition to mean "extradition" as an archaic use of the word.

it can't be a state secret if it didn't happen...

I wonder if these plaintiffs were sent down the rabbit hole on a Jeppesen Airplane? Just ask Alice.

My coat's the green ski jacket, thanks.

1 b. The surrender of a person.

1649 MILTON Eikon. Wks. 1851 III. 367 His rendition afterward to the Scotch Army. 1670 TEMPLE Let. Wks. 1731 II. 212 Their Answer was, That there was no need of distinguishing the Renditions of the Colony. 1860 S. ELIOT in Encycl. Brit. (ed. 8) XXI. 442/2 The rendition of fugitive slaves by the Northern States. 1864 SALA in Daily Tel. 13 Sept., Mr. Seward can scarcely place any obstacles in the way of the rendition of this man.

----

So I suppose the "extraordinary" bit is the fact that it's quite extraordinary to either:

A) Arrest someone with the sole purpose of "surrendering" him

B) "Surrender" someone who hasn't been requested....

Contractors have Derivative Immunity from Liability. The ability to sue the government for damages is restricted by the scope of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), which protects the federal government from suit in certain situations. A contractor may be protected from liability to the same extent as the government if the contractor was acting under the authority and at the direction of the government.

The ACLU simply showed a great deal of incompetence in bringing this lawsuit in the first place. They knew it would go nowhere.

The ACLU's objective had nothing to do with "justice", it was merely a fishing trip to try and get more info out into the public sphere over the rendition program, and as a side benefit embarass the Whitehouse. For them, any publicity is good publicity, and the expected outcome allows them to squeal about how Bush/Cheney are a police state using extreme powers against the will of the people, etc, bla, bla, bla.

Jepps doesn't own any airplanes or make any flights. They provide maps and flight planning services to whoever wants or needs them. This includes airlines, general aviation, explorers, anyone who flies. There are other sources as well.

Jepps (and other mapmakers) cannot be responsible for the purpose of any flight, legal, illegal, around the pattern or across the world, state secret or not state secret, or for the use of their data.

Attempting to Jepps to account for this is absurd. Under this theory, if someone robs a bank, the bank could sue the manufacturer of the getaway car, the supplier of the mask, the provider of the fuel for the getaway car, and the state for providing roads for the robbers to drive on.

Paris for the total lack of logic in this suit. The ACLU should know better.

Legal arguments aside, if the judge were to find in the plaintiffs', someone might decide that the good judge is a potential terrorist/illegal combatant/whatever and suddenly he might just find himself in the back of a Jeppesen plane, on route to a country where they ask questions like, "how many fingers can i break with one hammer?"

It probably wouldn't happen that way but the judge would have to be naive to think that it couldn't possibly happen to him. And I wonder how much effect it had on his deliberations. And THAT is why "trust me we don't torture people *wink* *wink*" is insidious.

Arguments about the use of torture and what constitutes torture aside, what a sad world this is becoming when 'the Land of The Free' may be torturing innocent people.

So, is it that you don't *believe* that Bush/Cheney are a police state abusing executive power in violation of the constitution, or is it that you don't *care* that they are?

Because sure, you can argue that you're in favour of a police state if that's what you believe, fine, but you can't have it both ways, and in the other position you're essentially trying to claim that, /because/ Bush/Cheney aren't a police state abusing executive power in violation of the constitution, it is therefore ok for them to do .... absolutely anything they want, through arbitrary executive power, without regard for the constitution, beyond any scrutiny or accountability. And that's exactly what you just said that they /weren't/ doing.

So,

- either you're in favour of a police state,

- or you accept that the executive should not be above the scrutiny of law

- or you're just talking incoherent nonsense

The government should NEVER be above the law, because *that* is a *far* greater threat to our lives, happiness, wealth and liberty than anything that any bitter, twisted, psychopathic small-minded bigots with a bunch of TATP could *ever* be.

The President (the executive branch) disregards the courts (the judicial branch) by using the "State Secrets" pledge to avoid embarrassing and inconvenient information from leaking out.

The President (the executive branch) disregards the Congress (the legislative branch) by ignoring the laws of the country when enabling the NSA wiretaps against US citizens on US soil.

So can someone please explain how the "checks and balances" work, exactly? If I didn't know better, I'd describe the above behavior as that of a present-day communist (such as China), dictator, fascist, or totalitarian. But certainly not the country that our forefathers gave their lives for. I often wonder what the founding fathers would think of the country (and government) if they saw it today.