PBS Reports.....Bill Clinton & Al Gore Tortured, when will they be investigated??????

[SeedyROM]

Of course, I’m sure you wouldn’t oppose the prosecution of Bill Clinton, who signed and then ordered the first renditions, right?

Then of course there is the matter of Al Gore. According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
‘extraordinary renditions’, were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment 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.’”[/QUOTE]

There are plenty of other examples of Clinton era rendition/torture programs. 36 known tortures!!! Or will you close this thread without responding....if so you admit you prefer an unconstitution partisan investigation and you actually support torture so long as dems are torturing!! Its time to discuss Dems ordering torture.

Add Clinton and Gore and a host of other Dems who knowingly signed off on the rendition torture train.

I mean, you can’t start the game in 5th inning, right?

[QUOTE]http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html

October 1994
U.N. Convention Against Torture

The United Nations Convention Against Torture goes into force in the United States. The U.N. convention, signed a decade earlier, bans the transfer of a prisoner to another country where there are "substantial grounds" that he may face torture. The U.S. Congress, in ratifying the treaty, orders that "substantial grounds" are defined as "more likely than not" that the prisoner will be tortured. The convention potentially makes renditions to other countries a crime under U.S. law.

Under President Clinton, the CIA launches a systematic covert program of "extraordinary" rendition, the transfer of suspected Islamist terrorists to foreign countries. The Clinton administration is responding to fears of a growing transnational threat from Osama bin Laden and other well-organized Sunni extremists in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Egypt.

Among this program's creators is CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, chief of what becomes the Bin Laden Unit from August 1995 to June 1999. According to Scheuer, the rendition program's goal is to take people off the streets who are planning or have been involved in attacks on the U.S. and its allies, and to seize documents in their possession when arrested. In his book Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey, who has been investigating the CIA's secret rendition program for four years, reports that President Clinton orders that, in addition to bringing some terrorists to face trial in the U.S., others should be sent to foreign countries where they are wanted for a crime. To comply with the provisions of the Convention Against Torture, the CIA is ordered to get assurances from destination countries that suspects will not be tortured. "At the minimum," Grey says, "countries with the very worst human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits at first." Another key difference, he adds, "Renditions before the Bush administration were carried out primarily to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or to interrogate individuals."

September 22, 1995
The first Extraordinary Rendition

In Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey writes that extraordinary rendition by the CIA began as a systematic tactic on September 22, 1995, with the capture of Egyptian Abu Talal al-Qasimi, in Croatia, and his transfer to Egypt where he was executed. The term "extraordinary rendition" is never an official CIA term, but it comes to define the CIA's program of snatching terrorist suspects abroad and transferring them without legal process to a third country for detention and frequent interrogation.

The passage of the War Crimes Act allows U.S. federal courts to prosecute grave war crimes like "willful killing", "torture", "inhuman treatment", "unlawful deportation or transfer," and other breaches of the Geneva Conventions. This new law applies whether these acts are committed "inside or outside the United States."

August 1996
The War Crimes Act of 1996
The implications of the Act are profound. After war begins in Afghanistan in late 2001, the then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales begins a secret debate among administration lawyers about how to order the most effective interrogation of hundreds of prisoners captured around the world while avoiding prosecutions of the U.S. soldiers and officials involved for breach of the War Crimes Act.


The Supreme Court supported torture in the 1800s, we call that Precendent IMO!!!!!!!
http://supreme.justia.com/us/119/436/
Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886)
Ker v. Illinois

Argued April 27, 1886

Decided December 6, 1886

119 U.S. 436


Syllabus

A plea to an indictment in a state court that the defendant has been brought from a foreign country to this country by proceedings which are a violation of a treaty between that country and the United states, and which are forbidden by that treaty, raises a question, if the right asserted by the plea is denied, on which this Court can review, by writ of error, the judgment of the state court.

But where the prisoner has been kidnapped in the foreign country and brought by force against his will within the jurisdiction of the state

Page 119 U. S. 437

whose law he has violated, with no reference to an extradition treaty, though one existed, and no proceeding or attempt to proceed under the treaty, this Court can give no relief, for these facts do not establish any right under the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

The treaties of extradition to which the United States are parties do not guarantee a fugitive from the justice of one of the countries an asylum in the other. They do not give such person any greater or more sacred right of asylum than he had before. They only make provision that for certain crimes, he shall be deprived of that asylum and surrendered to justice, and they prescribe the mode in which this shall be done.

The trespass of a kidnapper, unauthorized by either of the governments and not professing to act under authority of either, is not a case provided for in the treaty, and the remedy is by a proceeding against him by the government whose law he violates or by the party injured.

How far such forcible transfer of the defendant so as to bring him within the jurisdiction of the state where the offense was committed may be set up against the right to try him is the province of the state court to decide, and presents no question in which this Court can review its decision.

The plaintiff in error, being convicted of embezzlement in a state court of Illinois, sued out this writ of error. The federal question which makes the case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

[SeedyROM]

Apparantly the ACLU was on CLintons back too, but where o where is the main stream media........you know, the networks with declining ratings, declining revene and increased media bias that's driving down the profits???

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html
Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards. This program is commonly known as "extraordinary rendition." The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/2009/01/06/did_leon_panetta_know_about_extraordinary_renditio ns_under_clinton
Liberals might be in for a nasty shock with Leon Panetta, the man Barack Obama wants to lead the CIA.

The selection of the former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton has been welcomed by many Democrats for his denunciations of torture and all round management abilities.

But according to one former agent, Michael Scheuer, the extraordinary rendition programme that has so tainted the agency during the Bush administration actually began in the Clinton administration, when Panetta would, or should, have been fully aware of it.

Scheuer is a curious beast. An opponent of the Iraq War, he was the head of the CIA's get-bin-Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, and he should know what he is talking about. But he is very pro-rendition and was critical of the choice of Panetta on US networks today, mostly because he is an outsider. His claim that Clinton/Panetta started/knew about the outsourcing of torture was repeated by William Kristol and others.

Criticism of Panetta's selection has centred on his lack of spook experience, though that didn't help George Tenet deliver accurate intelligence on Saddam Hussein.

At what promises to be a lively confirmation hearing, senators might be well served to ask Panetta what he knew about agreements to send terror suspects to the likes of Egypt and Syria, where they were likely to be tortured.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/panetta-to-be-questioned_n_158216.html
President-elect Barack Obama's choice for CIA director, Leon Panetta, served as White House chief of staff during the time the Clinton administration accelerated a practice of kidnapping terrorist suspects and sending them to countries with records of torturing prisoners, human rights organizations and former U.S. officials say.

Republicans on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will question Mr. Panetta, chief of staff for President Clinton from 1994 to 1997, about what, if any, role he played in shaping the policy known as "extraordinary rendition," a Republican aide on the committee said. Mr. Panetta's confirmation hearing is scheduled for Jan. 27. The aide asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

[Zebulon0351]

I agree 100% Any investigations on torture should not ever be a partisan affair. In bringing up Clinton though, the Right needs to be very careful to not point fingers. By shifting the blame, or rather, spreading the blame to a Democratic president, it would in turn admit there is also blame to be shared by the very people those on the right are defending.

Personally, I hate that this issue has politicized in the first place. Nothing will show the rest of the world that our country is falling apart than an obvious divide that is dramatized by all factions of our media. The Fox's and the MSNBC's are both to blame for this. Arguments coming from both sides are very biased based on their side of the political compass. It is not an argument on whether or not we torture, it is an argument of what the definition of the word "torture" is, and if any of the revised definitions are constitutional or not.

Obama should set his own policies when it comes to interrogations, and move on. If he wants to prove to the world that we do not "torture" anymore, he should do it by his actions in future interrogations and not starting an investigation that will further divide the country as it already is.

[radioguy]

I agree 100% Any investigations on torture should not ever be a partisan affair. In bringing up Clinton though, the Right needs to be very careful to not point fingers. By shifting the blame, or rather, spreading the blame to a Democratic president, it would in turn admit there is also blame to be shared by the very people those on the right are defending.

I don't think it's a matter of shifting blame at all. I think it's more making the point that until the "hate Bush" movement, water boarding and other interrogation procedures were never seen as torture. This whole torture issue, is nothing more that an attempt to crucify George Bush.

It's just like the "Bush lied" theme from the left. Showing the Clinton administration publicly stating that Saddam had WMD, was not to say that Clinton also lied, but to show that neither administration lied.

[Zebulon0351]

I don't think it's a matter of shifting blame at all. I think it's more making the point that until the "hate Bush" movement, water boarding and other interrogation procedures were never seen as torture. This whole torture issue, is nothing more that an attempt to crucify George Bush.

Im not saying its a matter of shifting the blame either. All Im saying is the Republican Party just needs to be VERY careful on putting any blame on Clinton because it would admit blame themselves. I just hope all of this burns out without anyone going under the chopping block. Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore, whoever.

[kres24GT]

Torturing has occurred under every president and will continue under every president from here on out. I don't get the obsession with this being a partisan issue.

[Zebulon0351]

I don't think it's a matter of shifting blame at all. I think it's more making the point that until the "hate Bush" movement, water boarding and other interrogation procedures were never seen as torture. This whole torture issue, is nothing more that an attempt to crucify George Bush.

It's just like the "Bush lied" theme from the left. Showing the Clinton administration publicly stating that Saddam had WMD, was not to say that Clinton also lied, but to show that neither administration lied.

I don't think the WMD intel was Bush's problem with Iraq, it had more to do with the fact that Iraq wasn't the imminent threat that we all heard they were. With another war going on in the region, I believe we could have used the assets we used in Iraq to a be more beneficial in the war on terror.

[radioguy]

I don't think the WMD intel was Bush's problem with Iraq, it had more to do with the fact that Iraq wasn't the imminent threat that we all heard they were.

Only one person in Washington ever characterized Iraq as an "imminent threat", and it wasn't anyone from the Bush administration. It was the current chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic senator Jay Rockefeller.

So I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about when you say that we all heard that Iraq was an imminent threat?

[doctordog]

Of course, I’m sure you wouldn’t oppose the prosecution of Bill Clinton, who signed and then ordered the first renditions, right?

Then of course there is the matter of Al Gore. According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition
‘extraordinary renditions’, were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment 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.’”

There are plenty of other examples of Clinton era rendition/torture programs. 36 known tortures!!! Or will you close this thread without responding....if so you admit you prefer an unconstitution partisan investigation and you actually support torture so long as dems are torturing!! Its time to discuss Dems ordering torture.

Add Clinton and Gore and a host of other Dems who knowingly signed off on the rendition torture train.

I mean, you can’t start the game in 5th inning, right?



The Supreme Court supported torture in the 1800s, we call that Precendent IMO!!!!!!!

Do dungeons with Mistresses count as torture too?:lmao2:

[Zebulon0351]

Only one person in Washington ever characterized Iraq as an "imminent threat", and it wasn't anyone from the Bush administration. It was the current chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic senator Jay Rockefeller.

So I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about when you say that we all heard that Iraq was an imminent threat?

Read the transcript of Bush's televised speech just hours before the invasion. That should answer your question.

And if Iraq wasn't an imminent threat, why did we devote the majority of our deployed fighting force in the Global War on Terror to those operations?

[SeedyROM]

I agree 100% Any investigations on torture should not ever be a partisan affair. In bringing up Clinton though, the Right needs to be very careful to not point fingers. By shifting the blame, or rather, spreading the blame to a Democratic president, it would in turn admit there is also blame to be shared by the very people those on the right are defending.

Personally, I hate that this issue has politicized in the first place. Nothing will show the rest of the world that our country is falling apart than an obvious divide that is dramatized by all factions of our media. The Fox's and the MSNBC's are both to blame for this. Arguments coming from both sides are very biased based on their side of the political compass. It is not an argument on whether or not we torture, it is an argument of what the definition of the word "torture" is, and if any of the revised definitions are constitutional or not.

Obama should set his own policies when it comes to interrogations, and move on. If he wants to prove to the world that we do not "torture" anymore, he should do it by his actions in future interrogations and not starting an investigation that will further divide the country as it already is.

The Right must point fingers at dems and at Clinton, Gore and the cabinet, no exceptions.....they must be attacked equally if not greater!! If its not god for one party then its not good for the other. Dems are using this issue to gain voters more than most think. There will be no shifting of blame because they are equally at fault even though I agree that some torture should be used when warranted.

This issue has been bastardized by the left for political gain, now Nazi Pelosi is being drug into the dilemma because she knew and never spoke up. While she couldn't release documents or reveal known secrets it seems that the Red Cross blew the whistle and onl one party is being blamed so we must drag the dems into the issue. If this neutralizes the dem attacks and weakens the investigations then so be it!! Or lets haul them all into investigations, court cases and the prisons if convicted, isn't that how the system is supposed to work? Or are dems above the law too?

Obama has set his policies on torture in writing but that doesn't mean he will not order torture if needed. Official secrets remain a secret for a reason and I can assure you if Obama ordered torture we will not hear of it unless information is leaked. Remember, the Red Cross leaked details.

We never learned about Clintons crimes till years later. All those Docs should be released according to the democrats version of being repsonsible and ethical, but I doubt they'll agree since this is partisan driven, so the Right must counter attack with all relevant facts.

[SeedyROM]

I don't think it's a matter of shifting blame at all. I think it's more making the point that until the "hate Bush" movement, water boarding and other interrogation procedures were never seen as torture. This whole torture issue, is nothing more that an attempt to crucify George Bush.

It's just like the "Bush lied" theme from the left. Showing the Clinton administration publicly stating that Saddam had WMD, was not to say that Clinton also lied, but to show that neither administration lied.

Exactly. The Bush haters have over blown this whole fiasco. The names of every dem who voted for the Iraq war should be publicized and regurgitated when they run for re-election. If Bush lied then so did Clinton and all who voted for the war.

Dems bought the WMD story as easily as they bought the housing market is rock solid crap as did the rest of the dems and reps who were clueless. They got bluffed by Saddam and by the banks too.

[SeedyROM]

Im not saying its a matter of shifting the blame either. All Im saying is the Republican Party just needs to be VERY careful on putting any blame on Clinton because it would admit blame themselves. I just hope all of this burns out without anyone going under the chopping block. Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore, whoever.

I seriously doubt Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore will face the chopping block but them must be investigated equally. Reps need to be aggressive and assert blame on Dems for the same alleged crimes. The opinion of the law is more important than liberal opinions because dems assert political bias so Clinton and Gore must be held to the same standard. The blame must shift to include all who are responsible. Reps don't deny the events, the legal opinion of the law is in question.

[SeedyROM]

Torturing has occurred under every president and will continue under every president from here on out. I don't get the obsession with this being a partisan issue.

Its more about votes than torture. Party politics as usual.

[Zebulon0351]

I seriously doubt Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore will face the chopping block but them must be investigated equally. Reps need to be aggressive and assert blame on Dems for the same alleged crimes. The opinion of the law is more important than liberal opinions because dems assert political bias so Clinton and Gore must be held to the same standard. The blame must shift to include all who are responsible. Reps don't deny the events, the legal opinion of the law is in question.

You will get no argument from me there at all.

[SeedyROM]

[QUOTE=SeedyROM]Of course, I’m sure you wouldn’t oppose the prosecution of Bill Clinton, who signed and then ordered the first renditions, right?

Then of course there is the matter of Al Gore. According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:



Do dungeons with Mistresses count as torture too?:lmao2:

LOL, Gore should have his ass grabbed up by a group of fat mistresses. :lmao2:

[SeedyROM]

bump for Zeb

[Zebulon0351]

Of course, I’m sure you wouldn’t oppose the prosecution of Bill Clinton, who signed and then ordered the first renditions, right?

Honestly, I am not too familiar with these cases, can you give me a few days?

[Bill Cosby]

IThe opinion of the law is more important than liberal opinions because dems assert political bias so Clinton and Gore must be held to the same standard. The blame must shift to include all who are responsible. Reps don't deny the events, the legal opinion of the law is in question.

Lib-dem...... Not the same.........

billy, al, bush cheny......... I say give them a fair trial........ rummy yoo etc........ we got lots of courts..............

[SeedyROM]

Honestly, I am not too familiar with these cases, can you give me a few days?

Sure, look into the issue. There are facts that are still classified but that will end hopefully as both parites should be held to the same standard. I doubt they'll do anything other than grandstand and waste taxpayer money over Bush while deying Clinton's torture cases are not an issue. Which will of course make it an issue.

[Bill Cosby]

There are facts that are still classified but that will end hopefully as both parites should be held to the same standard. .

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Fair trials for all of them.......

[SeedyROM]

this will be bumped for months just because its relevant and liberals can't stand it when liberals are held accountable to "We the People" :thumbsup: :lmao2: :D

[Bill Cosby]

For accuracy here pls use democrat instead of the worn out term "liberal"...........

Most ppl no the left want justice not political patronage.......

[SeedyROM]

For accuracy here pls use democrat instead of the worn out term "liberal"...........

Most ppl no the left want justice not political patronage.......

Problem is many democrats are liberals, some are known socialists, progressives and neolibs. The party has little cohesion and the leadership is fragmented and ruled currently by the far left freakshow of liars, zealots and fascists.

Personally I firmly beleive dems or whatever do not want justice. If they really wanted justice or at least investigations and hearings then Clinton and Gore torture talks would be headline news. Fact is, since Clinton, Gore and Piglosi have entered the talks, Obama has backed off the Bushbots. All or none. Dems on this site are too biased, phoney and partisan to want a bipartisan investgation........thier heads are in the sand because the truth is too compelling for these people be honest, ethical and patriotic!!!

I'm going to up the states with new info to paint the dems as the killers of the inocent and torturers they are. Dems and liberals are not above contempt!!!

[Bill Cosby]

Some are many are not...........

I am on another board much more "liberal" progressive then this one & we had a topic & I think out of 50 or so only one called themselves liberal............ The term is pretty much played out........... Perhaps for smack & labeling it makes some feel better but it has lost most of the meaning........

Many democrats were on board for all the wars........ Hell just look @ the dixi crats..... They libs to??

2 cents

[disrupter]

But let's not give fair trials to the people these war criminals tortured.

Wow, America, you have become a disgusting cesspit.

[SeedyROM]

But let's not give fair trials to the people these war criminals tortured.

Wow, America, you have become a disgusting cesspit.

Last time I checked Obama agreed to continue military tribunals. They are fair and have been for 2 centuries. Are you against tribunals, if so, why?

So far 70 released terrorists went home and put on their terrorist masks so to speak. They fooled us and walked away to fight another day. In the eyes of terrorists, these 70 men are symbolic of their training and mission in life.

[foxbaron]

I agree 100% Any investigations on torture should not ever be a partisan affair. In bringing up Clinton though, the Right needs to be very careful to not point fingers. By shifting the blame, or rather, spreading the blame to a Democratic president, it would in turn admit there is also blame to be shared by the very people those on the right are defending.

Personally, I hate that this issue has politicized in the first place. Nothing will show the rest of the world that our country is falling apart than an obvious divide that is dramatized by all factions of our media. The Fox's and the MSNBC's are both to blame for this. Arguments coming from both sides are very biased based on their side of the political compass. It is not an argument on whether or not we torture, it is an argument of what the definition of the word "torture" is, and if any of the revised definitions are constitutional or not.

Obama should set his own policies when it comes to interrogations, and move on. If he wants to prove to the world that we do not "torture" anymore, he should do it by his actions in future interrogations and not starting an investigation that will further divide the country as it already is.



Well said. As long as Obama is willing to accept the responsibility of his decisions and our Congress stops leaking secrets like a sieve.

[Bill Cosby]

Last time I checked Obama agreed to continue military tribunals. They are fair and have been for 2 centuries. Are you against tribunals, if so, why?

So far 70 released terrorists went home and put on their terrorist masks so to speak. They fooled us and walked away to fight another day. In the eyes of terrorists, these 70 men are symbolic of their training and mission in life.
??? no links to back any of that up ???

How do we know there was 70??? or that they were not created as a result of maltreatment??? Abuse etc....???