http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm CIA renditions began under Clinton: agent The US Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) controversial "rendition" program was launched under US president Bill Clinton, a former US counter-terrorism agent has told a German newspaper. Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who resigned from the agency in 2004, has told 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 adviser Sandy Berger and his terrorism adviser Richard Clark ordered the CIA in the autumn of 1995 to destroy Al Qaeda," Mr Scheuer said. "We asked the president what we should do with the people we capture. Clinton said 'That's up to you'." Mr Scheuer, who headed the CIA unit that tracked Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, says he developed and led the "renditions" program. He says the program includes moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections. "In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee," he said. "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'." He says at the time the CIA did not arrest or imprison anyone itself. "That was done by the local police or secret services," he said, adding the prisoners were never taken to US soil. "President Clinton did not want that," he said. Bush changes He says the program changed under Mr 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," he said. "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 criticising the US administration for its anti-terrorism 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 the US does not condone torture. - AFP
so Clark was right in complaining that the CIA lost focus of OBL when Bush took over? did Bush admin tell CIA to work on something else?
Wait, from what the neo cons have spouted, Clinton did almost nothing to combat terrorism and now this. But this sounds more of the same old blaming or using the former administration for the current administrations agenda. It's always someone else's fault when it comes to the current regime.
When it comes to principles such as these it doesn't matter what Admin is in power and I get frustrated over the shortsighted views and partisanship of many here and in Congress over these issues. There has never been such a thing as a permanent majority in the US and the party in power today is just as likely to be the minority every two years. So what powers you argue for for today for the party you support will likely at sometime end up being used by the party you opposed. Things like doing away with the filibuster on Judicial appointees or arguing that the Executive Branch can surveil without warrants I bet many of the arguing the hardest for those would be singing a far different tune if Kerry had won or the Dems were the majority party in the Senate. On a related note didn't the Echelon program start under Clinton?
That's absolutely spot on. Also no one actually knows when echelon was created because it only became exposed in its totality around 2000. Christopher Hitchens wrote an article years ago that stated that Echelon's basis formed at the onset of the Cold War between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Still, Clinton probably knew about it and approved of it so it really doesnt matter.
sometimes my party's hypocrisy is too embarassing. yes blame it on Clinton. Everything was his fault. Yes we know we're the ones telling people to responsibility for thier own actions, just not when it comes to us. We always got the good ol liberals to blame, and if they're not around, hell then we blame the old ones. I wish some of these guys would man up.
Don't be so hard on yourself since Liberals and the Democrats have done the same thing for Conservatives on Republicans. I believe there are huge differences between the parties regarding to ideologies but when it comes to how they use power and rhetoric not much difference.
I'd go independent but wo wants to waste their vote? In all seriousness though, I'm so envious of those countries where the people gotta form a coalition government to run the place.
I agree. The more real choices we have the stronger a democracy. When there are two parties in power that have the same sponsors, donors, and tactics, then we aren't that much different from Soviet elections where only one party could win. We doubled their choices, but it just isn't the same. The sad thing is that our two parties have made the rules harder for independents or third parties to become involved.
I dont remember of the US was always a 2 party system, but I seem to remember from history class that there were always at least 3 or 4 parties vying for power over the years. Nothing demonstrates your second paragraph better than the pathetic attempts to not let Ross Perot's name on some state ballots in the 90's.
I think there were always 2 main parties but other parties used to have more access, and more of a chance. You are correct about not letting folks on the ballot. Even on this board we here people complain about both parties. If we had 7 or 8 parties it would be easier for folks to find groups they identtified with politically and it would probably increase political involvement, generate a higher voter turn out, and build a stronger, truer democracy. I wish I knew what I could do to help bring about those changes.
Yeah, great point in that. People often are apathetic to the whole voting process because they don't like what they see in the candidates. If thgere were more options, more people would come out. You think I really wanted to cross party lines and vote Kerry? If there had been just one other conservative candidate who showed any sign of intelligence, I woulda voted for him. I completely disagreed with Kerry on almost every single issue, but the man at least seemed like he wouldn't be a puppet.
