1
   

CIA prisoner 'rendition' program began under Clinton

 
 
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 12:48 pm
CIA prisoner 'rendition' program began under Clinton: ex-agent

Wed Dec 28,11:11 AM ET

The CIA's controversial "rendition" program to have terror suspects captured and questioned on foreign soil was launched under US presidentBill Clinton, a former US counterterrorism agent told a German newspaper.

Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, told Thursday's issue of the newsweekly Die Zeit that the US administration had been looking in the mid-1990s for a way to combat the terrorist threat and circumvent the cumbersome US legal system.

"President Clinton, his national security advisor Sandy Berger and his terrorism advisor Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al-Qaeda," Scheuer said, in comments published in German. "We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said 'That's up to you'."

Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al-Qaeda leader
Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, said that he developed and led the "renditions" program, which he said included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.

"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee. The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."

At the time, he said, the CIA did not arrest or imprison anyone itself. "That was done by the local police or secret services," he said, adding that the prisoners were never taken to US soil. "President Clinton did not want that."

He said the program changed under Clinton's successor,
President George W. Bush, after the attacks of September 11, 2001. "We started putting people in our own institutions -- in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. The Bush administration wanted to capture people itself but made the same mistake as the Clinton administration by not treating these people as prisoners of war."

He accused Europeans of being hypocritical in criticizing the US administration for its anti-terror tactics while benefiting from them. "All the information we received from interrogations and documents, everything that had to do with Spain, Italy, Germany, France, England was passed on," he said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended renditions on a trip to Europe this month as a "vital tool" for fighting international terrorism but insisted that Washington does not condone torture.

Source
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,342 • Replies: 26
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 12:51 pm
what's your point? that bush is excused no doubt.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 02:50 pm
I don't see it so much as a form of excuse for George as I see it as a reminder that George is not responsible for everything bad that ever happened. The majority of the liberal left seems to put on blinders whenever any truth about Clinton comes out that shows he was not a saint.

Again, I am not saying that George is perfect; but, this does remind us all that he did not create some of the programs currently in action. Okay, so now you wonder why he didn't dismantle them...undoubtedly if he had, then the liberal left would be screaming that the dismantling of those programs is what creates problems. It's a lose-lose situation.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 03:01 pm
Is this two-wrongs-make-a-right day at A2K?

Must be the bluelight special or somethin'.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 03:03 pm
As I stated earlier, I am in no way trying to let George off the hook when he errs; however, one must not gloss over the sins of the past Presidents either.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 03:04 pm
That'd be what makes it two wrongs.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Dec, 2005 03:37 pm
But...but CLINTON!

Laughing
0 Replies
 
rodeman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 03:46 pm
It was wrong then and it's wrong now................IMO
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 04:03 pm
Ditto. What's with the assumption that everyone who doesn't like Bush must be a Clinton supporter?
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 04:09 pm
This is lame as hell. I'm trying to remember if Iv'e ever done something like this on A2K?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 04:12 pm
Ditto indeed.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 04:50 pm
JW may well have a motivation here of seeking to excuse the Bush administration or minimize what it has been up to through comparison.

But on the other hand (assuming the truth of the claim, and I have no compelling reason to doubt it) this is relevant historical information.

What it doesn't do is excuse anyone. Rendition to countries who do torture makes an administration accomplice to the act.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 04:52 pm
So, is JW saying that Clinton actually did something she approves of?
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 05:15 pm
Terrorism was not as big a thing during the Clinton Administration and it only involved overseas activities.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 05:33 pm
DrewDad wrote:
So, is JW saying that Clinton actually did something she approves of?






HISTORIC MOMENT!!!!!!!!




This mean she's gonna hafta change her mind about nefarious willie suckage?)
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 06:01 pm
"suckage"! A fine new word for my vocabulary. I shall seek occasion to use it as soon as possible.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 06:15 pm
What is the outcome of the people that find logic in the intended argument in the title post. Thats what i'm asking myself.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 06:42 pm
It's a common enough strategy.....we all do it...left and right and brindle.


It's a kind of attempted tu quoque, I guess...

"You have no right to say .......... is bad, cos this ....... that you support is just as bad."


It works as an argument when accusation about the other side's favoured person/country/institution is true, AND the other side will not similarly judge their side's actions/words etc. to be undesirable.

It doesn't make the originally condemned action correct, but it lessens the weight of the condemnation.


Thing is, here, when debate runs so hot, many people DO tend to be reluctant to criticize "their" side...at least publicly.




The obvious response is "Yeah that's wrong, too>"
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 06:56 pm
Rendition is hardly a new item.

Geez, go back and see the attacks against Clinton for not getting Bin Laden when he was in Sudan. Supposedly the US was trying to get Sudan to turn Bin Laden over so he could be rendered back to Saudi Arabia. It didn't work out and the right attacked CLinton repeatedly for not doing something that facts show was never a real option.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 07:01 pm
This from Wikipedia
Quote:
International rendition
Since the 1980s, the United States has increasingly turned to rendition as a judicial and extra-judicial method for dealing with foreign defendants. The first well-known case involved the Achille Lauro hijackers, who were in an airplane over international waters that was forced down by United States Air Force fighter planes in an attempt to turn them over to United States Government representatives for transport to and trial in the United States. Later, the practice expanded to include the deportation and expulsion of persons deemed enemy aliens or terrorists from countries into United States custody.

The CIA was granted permission to use rendition in a presidential directive that dates to the Clinton administration, although very few uses were documented during that time. The practice has grown sharply since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and now includes a form where suspects are taken into US custody but delivered to a third-party state, often without ever being on American soil. Because such cases do not involve the rendering country's judiciary, they have been termed extraordinary rendition.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CIA prisoner 'rendition' program began under Clinton
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 05:17:28