12-13-2007, 10:57 PM
|
 |
Administrator
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: 
Posts: 8,991
Thanks: 218
Thanked 2,164 Times in 1,617 Posts
|
|
Re: Which party is the most couragous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy
I thought I would start a fight. I believe that the party that is willing to give up their privacy and or rights for fear of terrorists is the republicans. Or when they cover up secret prisons, rendition and torture. It seems they are willing to give up anything to stay safe. Save us Bushy save us. Their leaders are deferment babies and chicken hawks. And just like their hero Bill O'Rielly. Another brave warrior. I'll bet left in a room alone with him I'd have him crying like a baby in less then 10 minutes. He reminds me of Frank Burns on MASH. You know ferret face.  |
Here we go again...
Guess who started the secret prisons and renditions?...
Wasn't a Bushie...
Quote:
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.
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.'”
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." However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received. 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.
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.
|
Case Number 4578 where Bush is only doing what they last guy started, but the usual suspects would NEVER attack President "He Whom Shall never Be Blamed For Anything" for it, so they either pretend it never happened before Bush or just plead ignorance...
SOP... 
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
|
LinkBacks (?)
Linear Mode
