This editorial really threw me.......is it really true?

[springhill]

There was an editorial this morning in our local newspaper (Lewiston Tribune) and it talks about kidnapping of foreign terrorists SUSPECTED of terrorism. It said that this was also done under Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Below is a couple of the paragraphs from the editorial:

In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke remembers Vice President Al Gore's response: "Gore laughed and said, That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law. That's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."

I am beginning to think that this administration is just openly doing some of the same things that have been carried out over the years. I want to be wrong, but I am very cynical these days.

[yurbud]

1. do you have a link?

[bryant69]

2. Who wrote it?

THat sounds pretty far fetched.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[springhill]

5. I was reading the editorial from my newspaper..........

don't have a link as you have to be registered and I am not. I did find this on wikipedia on extraordinary rendition under both Clinton and Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Usage by the Clinton Administration
The procedure was developed by CIA officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda <14>.

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke...

“ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'<15> ”

In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally — including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed."<16> However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received.<17> He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." However, he stated,

This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes.<18>
Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat.


Usage by the Bush Administration
Since the start of the "war on terror" declared by President Bush and the U.S. Congress after the September 11, 2001 attacks, critics, such as Scott Horton, an expert on international law and anti-war advocate, accuse the United States government, in particular the CIA, of rendering hundreds of people suspected by the United States government of being terrorists — or of aiding and abetting terrorist organizations — to third-party states such as Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Morocco, and Uzbekistan. Such "ghost detainees" are kept outside of judicial oversight, often without ever entering US territory, and may or may not ultimately be devolved to the custody of the United States.<16><19>

According to a December 4, 2005 article in the Washington Post by Dana Priest:

“ Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure: Dressed head to toe in black, including masks, they blindfold and cut the clothes off their new captives, then administer an enema and sleeping drugs. They outfit detainees in a diaper and jumpsuit for what can be a day-long trip. Their destinations: either a detention facility operated by cooperative countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, including Afghanistan, or one of the CIA's own covert prisons – referred to in classified documents as "black sites," which at various times have been operated in eight countries, including several in Eastern Europe.<20><21> ”

The United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asserted in an April 2006 radio interview that the United States does not transfer people to places where they know they will be tortured.<4>

Following mounting scrutiny in Europe, including investigations held by Swiss senator Dick Marty who released a public report in June 2006, the US Senate, in December 2005, was about to approve a measure that would include amendments requiring the director of national intelligence to provide regular, detailed updates about secret detention facilities maintained by the United States overseas, and to account for the treatment and condition of each prisoner.<22>

[blondeatlast]

6. What newspaper? We have DUers all over the world, perhaps they would be more willing

to enlighten us on the specifics--like the source, the date, the page...

[springhill]

8. I thought I said it was from the Lewiston (Idaho) Tribune.

It's a little town newspaper with no internationally known writers. I don't have a link because I didn't read it on-ine and am not registered to do so. I'm sorry I can't give you more. I just thought someone might know more about it and enlighten me on the differences, if there are any. That is all.

[blondeatlast]

10. Tehy have. Media Matters is a very reliable source. nt

[L. Coyote]

7. 9/11 was a crime too. This is why we need to adhere to laws.

If "So what if it is a crime" is a valid excuse for covert action in the world, how are we to complain when the US is attacked!

If our leaders fail to see that this is a two-way street, they really lack foresight! This is why the US tried to prohibit murdering foreign leaders, so our President would not be assassinated. The same protection should be afforded all Americans, by adhering to the rule of law in the world. In the othert direction lies complete anarchy.

[frazzled]

3. Misleading claim

From Media Matters:

CBS' 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley and Fox News host Bill O'Reilly both misleadingly suggested that the Bush administration's use of "rendition" -- the practice of transferring suspected terrorists from where they are captured to other countries, including nations known for torturing prisoners, while bypassing formal extradition procedures -- is merely a continuation of Clinton administration policy. The Bush administration has recently endured criticism from human rights advocates and at least one congressman over the practice. While the Clinton administration practiced rendition in rare circumstances, usually to send a suspect to a country to face criminal charges, the Bush administration has vastly increased the practice of transferring suspects solely in order to subject them to interrogation in other countries.

< . . .>

The New York Times reported on March 6 that the Clinton administration enforced much greater oversight and tighter restrictions on renditions and generally used the practice to allow suspects to face criminal prosecutions, rather than solely to undergo interrogation:

Before Sept. 11, the C.I.A. had been authorized by presidential directives to carry out renditions, but under much more restrictive rules. In most instances in the past, the transfers of individual prisoners required review and approval by interagency groups led by the White House, and were usually authorized to bring prisoners to the United States or to other countries to face criminal charges.

As part of its broad new latitude, current and former government officials say, the C.I.A. has been authorized to transfer prisoners to other countries solely for the purpose of detention and interrogation.

More at link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200503090003

To summarize: under rare circumstances, and with safeguards and interagency review, Clinton admin. sometimes renditioned people to face criminal charges they were facing in foreign countries. The Bush admin., by contrast, has secretly, without oversight, renditioned people solely for the purpose of being interrogated (read: torture).

[On the Road]

4. Rendition Was Practiced Under the Clinton Administration

and it is troubling, although I suspect Clinton would be able to justify the circumstances a lot better than Bush can.

As far as the "suspected" part, terrorists are usually not on the lam from a guilty verdict. Our intelligence agencies track individuals by name and in many cases know exactly who's a terrorist. Bush seems to have widened the net to include those who simply know terrorists or are involved in organizations like Hezbollah or Hamas which by itself should not qualify anyone as a terrorist.

[redqueen]

17. Nice to see a non-kneejerk response. (nt)

[parkerll]

9. Cynical 2

I'm over my belief that the two political parties in the U.S. are somehow different. What we have here is a wealthy elite setting the rules for the rest of us, whether it is economic rules, legal rules, business rules, etc.
Look at all of the laws, civil and criminal, that set the course of our lives. Who do they benefit? Read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.
I'm just here until I die. Glad I never had kids.

[blondeatlast]

11. You couldn't have read through the thread before you posted that brilliance, could you have?

Media Matters is sourced above.

No beer for you, sorry.

[parkerll]

18. sorry

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to express my opinion. I'll tow the party line in the future.

[Bitwit1234]

12. Republicans are dumb enough to believe this

but do you in your wildest dreams, believe that Al Gore would ever make that kind of a statement. No no no

[Javaman]

13. Read, "Legacy of Ashes" by weiner. it will explain how we got into this mess.

it's a history of the CIA

[Democrat 4 Ever]

14. Just for the record. Al Gore was quoted as saying this in Richard Clarke's book

"Against All Enemies," (Free Press 2004)page 144, half into second paragraph.

Now will the repugs worry that Clinton was breaking international law or will they still bitch that Clinton did nothing about terrorism?

Read the book. It is an excellent recounting of the Clinton approach to terrorism, aviation safety, etc. And then Chucklenuts and Dead Eye hit the Oval Office and EVERYTHING stops.

[Javaman]

15. I will, thanks for the recommend. :) nt

[madinmaryland]

16. Apparently you didn't get the meme: BLAME CLINTON!

Or so say the repubs. So much for the party of responsibility!