Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

I object to Extraordinary Rendition being placed under Clinton....

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
Tigress DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-04-06 05:25 AM
Original message
I object to Extraordinary Rendition being placed under Clinton....
in Wikipedia. Has anyone else seen this?

SUBJECT: U.S. Policy on Counterterrorism (U) PDD39 1995

It is the policy of the United States to deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens, or facilities, whether they occur domestically, in international waters or airspace or on foreign territory. The United States regards all such terrorism as a potential threat to national security as well as a criminal act and will apply all appropriate means to combat it. In doing so, the U.S. shall pursue vigorously efforts to deter and preempt, apprehend and prosecute, or assist other governments to prosecute, individuals who perpetrate or plan to perpetrate such attacks. (U)

We shall work closely with friendly governments in carrying out our counterterrorism policy and will support Allied and friendly governments in combating terrorist threats against them. (U)

Furthermore, the United States shall seek to identify groups or states that sponsor or support such terrorists, isolate them and extract a heavy price for their actions. (U)

I read though a lot of it, but the farthest back I saw any actual proof of an abuse of the directive was 2001 and guess what? THAT wasn't during Clinton's presidency, now was it?

Clinton nor his Attorney General NEVER called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" so I'm thinking appropriate means no torture, even if the trials weren't here. One thing I've never heard is that terrorists were much more afraid of Clinton than *.

I see Bush's entry has been sanitized and locked.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-04-06 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Portion on Clinton seems OK -IMHO - but nothing under Bush personal
write up is wierd, given his abuse of civil rights
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-04-06 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. I believe you are wrong.
Edited on Tue Jul-04-06 08:17 AM by Warren Stupidity
Rendition occurred uder Clinton, and the countries where we sent people (for example Egypt) were known to employ torture. However, under Clinton this policy was rare, which doesn't justify it, while under Bush it appears to be commonplace.

I refer you to and more imporantly to the excellent New Yorker article by Jane Mayer.

"Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognitionbecoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, an abomination. What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspectspeople against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrantscame to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms illegal enemy combatants. Many of them have never been publicly charged with any crime. Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been rendered since 2001. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, said that a more precise number was impossible to obtain. Ive asked people at the C.I.A. for numbers, he said. They refuse to answer. All they will say is that theyre in compliance with the law."

Clinton has no excuse for what he did. Both Clinton and Bush have committed crimes against humanity here, in clear violation of treaty obligations. Obviously the magnitude of Bush's criminal behavior far exceeds that of Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 21st 2018, 05:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC