NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, it's not just a Republican thing - I wonder how Clinton will be able to speak on this subject, since it's apparent he thought it was OK to get foreigners and run them to foreign secret detention centers where they could be tortured.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm

The major difference seems to be that under Bush, we try to run the centers, whereas under Clinton, that was done by local authorities.

In both cases the Presidents both saw the people captured as "enemy combatants". So apparently the "enemy combatant" thing is not new.

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'."

Yep--and it was shitty then too, and lots of people on the political left--not politician, mind you, but activists--protested it then, myself among them. Some things are beyond partisanship.

Yep, no doubt about it, from rendition programs to poking his nose into Iraq and Syria to the DOMA to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Billy-Bob Clinton was a neocon in disguise. It's no wonder the GOP hate(d) him with such a passion -- he beat them at their own game.

Just because Clinton did something bad doesn't mean it's okay for Bush to follow in his footsteps. Both of them should be on trial in The Hague.

And people still try to tell me there actually is a difference between the parties in America...

http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif

Just because a few lemmings ahead of you jump over the cliff, it does not mean it's okay for you to jump over it as well. Clinton was behind quite a few stupid shits in history, but I can't help but wonder if this is another thread designed to try and throw the heat off Bush just because "Slick Willy Did It First." Clinton's been grilled over a blowjob a lot more significantly than Bush ever has been for all his blunders combined.

I'm ashamed clinton did this.

Doesn't excuse the current administration from blame, however.

That's why it's important never to get caught. Everyone has dirty laundry that no one likes to see, but is essential, anyhow. I wouldn't be surprised if those oh-so-righteous Western European powers have a similar program, too. They better shut up right now, or else look like really big hippocrites a few years down the road.

By the way, here is the original interview, but as expected, it's been translated into German.

http://www.zeit.de/2006/01/M__Scheuer

EDIT: BTW, Deep Kimchi...do you speak German? You were stationed there for a while, so you should have picked it up, correct?

Just out of curiosity, DK--is this the reaction you were hoping for? Or were you hoping to catch the liberals on the board unawares and try to cast us as hypocrites? If you knew liberals as well as you seem to think you do, you'd know that most of look at Bill Clinton as an effective but tremendously flawed centrist president, certainly not the liberal that the right wing tried to paint him as.

Oh, and we see Hillary for the centrist she is as well. We won't be working to put her on the ticket in 2008.

Nazz, I hope to hell you're right.

No suprise in a lot of ways. One politician is pretty much the same as the next. They're all bastards, through and through.

1. Fred Phelps
2. Cindy Sheehan
3. John Kerry
4. Chuck Schumer
5. Brady
6. Rosie O donnel
7.Malcolm X
8. Muslim Apologists
9. Hippies
10. Wicked people

-snip-
I completely agree. :p

Just because a few lemmings ahead of you jump over the cliff, it does not mean it's okay for you to jump over it as well. Clinton was behind quite a few stupid shits in history, but I can't help but wonder if this is another thread designed to try and throw the heat off Bush just because "Slick Willy Did It First." Clinton's been grilled over a blowjob a lot more significantly than Bush ever has been for all his blunders combined.

No, but people in the Democratic Party could hardly be bothered to criticize Clinton for the things that they criticize Bush for.

For those few of you who aren't Americans, you can bitch at both of them. For the Democrats here who were doing their impression of Silent Bob during the Clinton years, you all either need to insist that Clinton get punished along with Bush, or renounce your hypocritical stand towards Bush's actions.

Either you're against rendition, or you're not. You can't say, "well, it was OK when a Democrat did it, but Republicans are eeevil".

They've been pointing fingers on this subject for a while yet not much has been done.

Either you're against rendition, or you're not.

Which one are you?

No, but people in the Democratic Party could hardly be bothered to criticize Clinton for the things that they criticize Bush for.

For those few of you who aren't Americans, you can bitch at both of them. For the Democrats here who were doing their impression of Silent Bob during the Clinton years, you all either need to insist that Clinton get punished along with Bush, or renounce your hypocritical stand towards Bush's actions.

Either you're against rendition, or you're not. You can't say, "well, it was OK when a Democrat did it, but Republicans are eeevil".

Ive yet to see anyone, Democrat or otherwise say it was ok for Clinton to do it.

Just because a few lemmings ahead of you jump over the cliff, it does not mean it's okay for you to jump over it as well. Clinton was behind quite a few stupid shits in history, but I can't help but wonder if this is another thread designed to try and throw the heat off Bush just because "Slick Willy Did It First." Clinton's been grilled over a blowjob a lot more significantly than Bush ever has been for all his blunders combined.


Clinton's blowjob was to take attention away from the myriad of other fuck stories he and his lovely wife were involved in. Hillary's commodities scam, Vincent Foster's "suicide", Whitewater Development Co,"Travelgate" Madison Guaranty-the list keeps going.
The blowjob was the perfect event to take attention away from the real fucking Clinton was giving us.

Clinton's blowjob was to take attention away from the myriad of other fuck stories he and his lovely wife were involved in. Hillary's commodities scam, Vincent Foster's "suicide", Whitewater Development Co,"Travelgate" Madison Guaranty-the list keeps going.
The blowjob was the perfect event to take attention away from the real fucking Clinton was giving us.
Don't follow much in the way of news do you?:rolleyes:

Yes, it's not just a Republican thing - I wonder how Clinton will be able to speak on this subject, since it's apparent he thought it was OK to get foreigners and run them to foreign secret detention centers where they could be tortured.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm

The major difference seems to be that under Bush, we try to run the centers, whereas under Clinton, that was done by local authorities.

No, the major difference follows this statement:
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.

It was only after 9/11 that the CIA started capturing people. And after 9/11, there was a drastic increase in renditions according to Michael Scheuer (as I saw on 60 minutes). And they've been making mistakes too, apparantly capturing some wrong men. From allied countries.

In both cases the Presidents both saw the people captured as "enemy combatants". So apparently the "enemy combatant" thing is not new.
The article does not say that. The fight against terrorist at thet time was treated as a law-enforcement operation, not as a war, so the "enemy combatant" label was not applicable. I would imagine they were seen as criminals.

Don't follow much in the way of news do you?:rolleyes:

Why? Were the Clinton's cleared of this mountain of wrongdoing?
Or did one scandal replace each additional scandal right up to the Whitehouse being vandalized on their way out?

Why? Were the Clinton's cleared of this mountain of wrongdoing?
Or did one scandal replace each additional scandal right up to the Whitehouse being vandalized on their way out?
Yes---they were cleared of evey piece of it. In fact, the prosecutor in the Hale case called the Clintons victims of the Whitewater scam, and the final Whitewater report cleared them of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The only thing they ever laid a glove on Clinton for was Lewinsky. You ought to go back and take a look at your news sources, because you've been led quite far astray.

P.S. That White House vandalization story? Never happened (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1689).

when "60 minutes" did a segment on the rendition program back in march it specifically mentioned that it started under clinton. this isnt exactly a new revelation.

too bad the republicans went nuts over blowjobs instead of something that might make a freaking difference.

and yes, carnivorous, thats what ken starr was all about. the ONLY thing he could find to get clinton on was lying about getting a blowjob, an utterly irrelevant piece of info in the whole investigation of clinton. he was not a fool to be drawn from scandal to scandal. he went after clinton and couldnt find anything real to get him on.

Ive yet to see anyone, Democrat or otherwise say it was ok for Clinton to do it.
Silence is as good as saying OK.

Was this a mainstream media story when Clinton was President? No. Did the New York Times or Washington Post leak the big story then? No.

Silence is as good as saying OK.

Was this a mainstream media story when Clinton was President? No. Did the New York Times or Washington Post leak the big story then? No.

why do you think the press knew about it when clinton was president?

why do you think the press knew about it when clinton was president?

More to the point, why did the story today about Clinton's rendition get publishd by Agence France Presse, and not the New York Times. And not the Washington Post.

Guess they don't want to have to answer for giving him a pass when he was President.

More to the point, why did the story today about Clinton's rendition get publishd by Agence France Presse, and not the New York Times. And not the Washington Post.

Guess they don't want to have to answer for giving him a pass when he was President.
so your answer to my question was "i have no reason to think that the nyt or wp knew anything about this when clinton was president."

since you seem to have missed the 60 minutes story from 9 months ago, are you sure you didnt miss them mentioning it after that story was aired? did you search the nyt and wp databases to make sure?

so your answer to my question was "i have no reason to think that the nyt or wp knew anything about this when clinton was president."

since you seem to have missed the 60 minutes story from 9 months ago, are you sure you didnt miss them mentioning it after that story was aired? did you search the nyt and wp databases to make sure?

Yes I searched.

Why didn't they bring it up during his adminstration? It wasn't a secret. AFP didn't have any trouble finding out.

No, because people give him a pass. It's not evil unless a Republican does it.

Yes I searched.

Why didn't they bring it up during his adminstration? It wasn't a secret. AFP didn't have any trouble finding out.

No, because people give him a pass. It's not evil unless a Republican does it.
Maybe because the rendition program didn't start during Clinton's tenure--it started way back in Reagan's presidency. None of this excuses Clinton's use of it, but he was hardly the first and obviously wasn't the last.

One other question DK--in the post I quote above, you say this programw asn't a secret, and yet in your thread title, you call it the "secret prisoner rendition program." So which was it--secret or not?

Yes I searched.

Why didn't they bring it up during his adminstration? It wasn't a secret. AFP didn't have any trouble finding out.

No, because people give him a pass. It's not evil unless a Republican does it.
uhuh that makes sense

maybe, since the evil republican has been doing it since he enterered office in 2001 but it only got reported on in 2005 its because, even if it isnt a huge secret, something has to happen to bring it to the attention of the media.

One other question DK--in the post I quote above, you say this programw asn't a secret, and yet in your thread title, you call it the "secret prisoner rendition program." So which was it--secret or not?
"Secret" is a moniker used by the press.

Obviously, "secret" doesn't mean anything to government employees - instead of paying them for secrets as was done during the Cold War, today you merely have to tell the person you work for the New York Times or Washington Post, and they'll sing for you.

It was intended to be secret, but as we see, it wasn't much of a secret.

"Secret" is a moniker used by the press.

Obviously, "secret" doesn't mean anything to government employees - instead of paying them for secrets as was done during the Cold War, today you merely have to tell the person you work for the New York Times or Washington Post, and they'll sing for you.

It was intended to be secret, but as we see, it wasn't much of a secret.
I think you're half right--the program of rendering prisoners to other countries was never secret. The program of rendering prisoners to other countries so they could be tortured, however, that's another story. To my knowledge, Reagan never did that, Bush the Elder never did that, I'm unclear about Clinton but wouldn't be surprised, and I'm positive Bush the Lesser did. See the difference? (Probably not.)

There's only one reason you "render" people - and that's to have them interrogated by foreigners acting on your behalf.

There's a longstanding tradition in the US of sending some people to Israel to be interrogated.

No, it's torture - we're just hiring it out.

There's only one reason you "render" people - and that's to have them interrogated by foreigners acting on your behalf.

There's a longstanding tradition in the US of sending some people to Israel to be interrogated.

No, it's torture - we're just hiring it out.
Nope--there's one other reason, and it's apparently the reason Reagan used it. You render criminal suspects to countries where they've been charged from countries that don't allow extradition so they can face the criminal justice system--you act as a go-between.

Nope--there's one other reason, and it's apparently the reason Reagan used it. You render criminal suspects to countries where they've been charged from countries that don't allow extradition so they can face the criminal justice system--you act as a go-between.
Apparently Clinton was having Arabs "rendered". For interrogation purposes. Which is a euphemism for torture.

There's only one reason you "render" people - and that's to have them interrogated by foreigners acting on your behalf.

There's a longstanding tradition in the US of sending some people to Israel to be interrogated.

No, it's torture - we're just hiring it out.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - Bush

Apparently Clinton was having Arabs "rendered". For interrogation purposes. Which is a euphemism for torture.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10173206&postcount=2

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10173206&postcount=2

Nazz, you know I give you full credit - but I certainly don't give anyone on the Hill credit (perhaps Feingold) for thinking like that.

I firmly believe that for most Democrats (and Republicans), outrage over government abuses are not meant in earnest - they merely see them as effective political fodder.

Once everyone found out how powerful modern political scandal could be during the Watergate event, they've been trying and trying to reproduce the effect ever since - both sides working furiously to catch the other at anything.

And I do not believe for a second that major US media outlets are anything but direct participants in that.

Nazz, you know I give you full credit - but I certainly don't give anyone on the Hill credit (perhaps Feingold) for thinking like that.

I firmly believe that for most Democrats (and Republicans), outrage over government abuses are not meant in earnest - they merely see them as effective political fodder.

Once everyone found out how powerful modern political scandal could be during the Watergate event, they've been trying and trying to reproduce the effect ever since - both sides working furiously to catch the other at anything.

And I do not believe for a second that major US media outlets are anything but direct participants in that.

I thought thats pretty much all that politicians did. But there seems to be a lot more flak sticking now.

And the US media, like any other media, just whips up a controversy to sell papers. Just because they're not doing it because they dont beleive in it, doesnt mean we have to completely ignore them.

Yes, it's not just a Republican thing - I wonder how Clinton will be able to speak on this subject, since it's apparent he thought it was OK to get foreigners and run them to foreign secret detention centers where they could be tortured.
So do Americans still believe that there is a difference between the two parties?

So do Americans still believe that there is a difference between the two parties?

Well I think these days it is basically viewed that one is a watered down version of the other.

Are they the same. No. There are differences. Not as many but they exist.....

No, but people in the Democratic Party could hardly be bothered to criticize Clinton for the things that they criticize Bush for.

For those few of you who aren't Americans, you can bitch at both of them. For the Democrats here who were doing their impression of Silent Bob during the Clinton years, you all either need to insist that Clinton get punished along with Bush, or renounce your hypocritical stand towards Bush's actions.

Either you're against rendition, or you're not. You can't say, "well, it was OK when a Democrat did it, but Republicans are eeevil".
How many times in how many threads do we have to call for exactly that before you quit accusing us of not calling for it? And how many times do we have to blame the Democratic party for being just as corrupt as the Republican party before you quit accusing us of not doing so? And how many times do we have to remind you that not all critics of Bush are Democrats before you quit painting us all with the same brush?

That's why it's important never to get caught. Everyone has dirty laundry that no one likes to see, but is essential, anyhow. I wouldn't be surprised if those oh-so-righteous Western European powers have a similar program, too. They better shut up right now, or else look like really big hippocrites a few years down the road.
Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, Vinnie "The Chin" Gigante (rest his soul), and John "The Dandy Don" Gotti, all said the exact same thing about their secret programs, too.

Well I think these days it is basically viewed that one is a watered down version of the other.

Are they the same. No. There are differences. Not as many but they exist.....
Yet Americans do not accept that they live in a virtual one-party state. Both parties are just as bad as each other, and in same ways to boot.

Silence is as good as saying OK.

Was this a mainstream media story when Clinton was President? No. Did the New York Times or Washington Post leak the big story then? No.
So go ahead and bitch about the "liberal" media, as you have been, and just like we liberals have been bitching about the "corrupt" media ever since then. So what?

Precisely how does any of this excuse what Bush has done?

so your answer to my question was "i have no reason to think that the nyt or wp knew anything about this when clinton was president."

since you seem to have missed the 60 minutes story from 9 months ago, are you sure you didnt miss them mentioning it after that story was aired? did you search the nyt and wp databases to make sure?
I do remember hearing about this on television news back when Clinton was president. I also remember some debate about whether it was a crime or not. But then the Republicans decide Lewinsky was a bigger threat -- apparently, back then, they cared more about "morals" than either "security" or "rights."

Yes I searched.

Why didn't they bring it up during his adminstration? It wasn't a secret. AFP didn't have any trouble finding out.

No, because people give him a pass. It's not evil unless a Republican does it.
That's true of so many things, isn't it? (Joking!!)

How many times in how many threads do we have to call for exactly that before you quit accusing us of not calling for it? And how many times do we have to blame the Democratic party for being just as corrupt as the Republican party before you quit accusing us of not doing so? And how many times do we have to remind you that not all critics of Bush are Democrats before you quit painting us all with the same brush?

Being the Bushevik he is, DK is holding Democrats to the same unrealistic All or Nothing Either Or expectation he holds Muslims to. Basically in his mind they either have to All condemn it or they All support it.

It's only injustice when Republicans are being persecuted.

Being the Bushevik he is, DK is holding Democrats to the same unrealistic All or Nothing Either Or expectation he holds Muslims to. Basically in his mind they either have to All condemn it or they All support it.

It's only injustice when Republicans are being persecuted.
Well, yeah, of course, but on top of that, it doesn't matter if, just to satisfy him, we DO all condemn it, all together, with harmony and feeling. And it doesn't matter how many times we do it, or how many times we can show that we have done it in the past. He just keeps saying that we don't. It gets on my nerves.