It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: CIA Prisoner Rendition Started By Clinton Admin

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's policy of interrogating suspected terrorists in foreign countries to avoid involving the U.S. judicial system was developed under the Clinton administration, according to ex-CIA agent Michael Scheuer. In comments published in the German magazine Die Zeit, he claims that the CIA came up with the policy in response to Clinton's order to "destroy al Qaeda" without bringing any captured prisoners to U.S. soil. Initially the program didn't have any of its own facilities, but was expanded to include U.S.-run detention centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay by the Bush administration after September 11th.
 



news.yahoo.com
BERLIN (AFP) - The CIA's controversial "rendition" program to have terror suspects captured and questioned on foreign soil was launched under US president Bill 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'."


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It is unfortunate that the U.S. judicial system has become something that needs to be avoided, but it seems that Presidents from both parties agree on that point. The Constitution does give broad wartime powers to the President (even the ability to suspend habeas corpus, the only right defined in the body of the Constitution), but that seems to be being ignored of late by the ACLU and many courts that give them a sympathetic ear.


[edit on 12/29/2005 by djohnsto77]




posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Great find.

It is nice to see this all come out into the open. This clearly shows it is not all the fault of the Bush administration as some would like us all to believe.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Is this something that the average American isn't aware of?

I guess I just thought everyone knew Clinton gave the CIA these powers.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
The people arrested were not arrested in the US it clearly said,



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."


They were not Americans either.

Enemy combatants of other countries should not fall under the US laws unless the US keep them without any charges at Bush has been doing indefinitely.

Nice story but hardly can be compared to what Bush has been doing.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Shots.... "Because the other guy did it" is among history's most lame excuses.

The issue is not who started something terrible, or when it was started... but why is it happening at all.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
this is not a left right issue...it encompasses both....it shows another link or coincidence that points to inner workings that are trying to be kept hidden from us....inner workings that are stable and go beyond any administration that happens to be in office.......



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
The issue is not who started something terrible, or when it was started... but why is it happening at all.


I know what you mean and your point is well taken. Unfortunatelty we do have a few that like to play the blame game all the time and this shows the blame lies with both/all sides not just one, that was the point I was trying to make.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
clearmind

I may agree with your statement to a point, yes administrations do and keep secrets away from the public and presidents will exercise their executive powers.

But what perhaps Clinton started to help find and fight AL-Qaida, has been expanded and abused by the Bush administration to not only include foreigners but also American citizens.

Clinton told the CIA to do what they wanted to do, the CIA didn't not make arrests and the people where keep in those countries not in camps supported by the US like now.

Under Bush administration the US started to collect enemy combatants and then have then paraded in places like the camp in Cuba.

Out of site out of mind works better.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
The issue here is the friction that occurs when we attempt to handle the situation as a matter of US law and order. It should be handled as a military manner, with adjudication done strictly by military tribunes.

Using the "we live by a higher standard" as a reason for applying our civil rights and laws to terrorists is a fatalistic approach. I'm not suggesting that we abandon that approach, just realize that one tool does not fix all problems. Sometimes we look like the British Redcoats marching slowly down the center of a field, allowing the opposition to take their time aiming for our heart.

Just think of what would happen if, through a series of loopholes, we ran up against the ceiling of our legal system playing by the current rules with the terrorists. Should we allow them to massacre us because they won the legal battle "fair and square"? Or might it be wiser to realize that they don't bother with courts and trials when they judge one of ours that they have captured? And until they do, they can expect to be treated as they treat us?



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
wait a second... why did he have to go to germany to report this? why not in the united states? can he actaully quote an executive order that covers this?

Do people honeslty belive this is credible from an Ex-CIA? who reports to a foreign jornalist?

"because the previosu guy did it" is rather lame when Bush then would have been doing it himself for 5 years, and letting it continue?

What about the PR of Bush that said "THis was an isolated incident" when the torture pictures of Abu Garib were released? YOu are saying NOW that it has been on-going?

My head is spinning from the constant PR spins



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
So proof that this illegal practice has been carried out over a greater period of time is meant to say what exactly? That Bush didn't invent it but used it so he's a good guy after all? Wow, I suppose Smith and Wesson are guilty as sin because they're to blame for all the gun murders across the globe


Quite frankly this partisan ra-ra piece is quite transparent, especially considering the poster. This does not change the facts that extraordinary rendition is illegal one bit. Also the United States is not the only country who has a legal system with defined rules, the legal systems of the victim's own country is being violated as well as potentially the 3rd country they are illegally "extradited" to. It smacks of arrogance to try to profess it completely legal because the U.S constitution may or may not deem it so.

Charge Clinton for using Extraordinary Rendition, but Bush is the current President and he has used it. This does not change the case against him one iota.

[edit on 30/12/05 by subz]



new topics




 
2

log in

join