AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:33 am

I'm currently watching "Your World Today" from CNN International, live, on cable television. Right now, "Your World" is running a fairly sympathetic story on Maher Arar. However, in the moments prior, it was noted that the rendition program, by which terror suspects are sent to third countries for interrogation, was begun by President Bill Clinton in 1995.

Perhaps Democratic critics of the President should understand this fundamental fact before accusing the Administration of violating international standards of conduct.

[Edited 2006-10-06 18:37:04]
What's fair is fair.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13356
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:53 am

Wait a minute. First you deny it's happening, now it's all Clinton's fault? banghead  rotfl 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 1:54 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 1):
Wait a minute. First you deny it's happening, now it's all Clinton's fault?

I certainly did not deny that it occurred. In fact, in another thread, I said that third countries had promised not to use methods of torture, therefore necessarily implying that rendition did occur.
What's fair is fair.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:08 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Perhaps Democratic critics of the President should understand this fundamental fact before accusing the Administration of violating international standards of conduct.

Currently ongoing violations are a bit more pressing than past ones, don't you think?

Past violations still need to be investigated, but present ones are obviously more urgent.

Your hope of deflecting scrutiny and accountability from the Bush administration is futile - only an extension of the investigations could possibly be a result.
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3568
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:08 am

"...that third countries had promised not to use methods of torture"

Then what's the purpose of rendition? Big grin
Ain't I a stinker?
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:21 am

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 4):
Then what's the purpose of rendition?

"No, no...!!! Not the soft cushion!!!"  scared   hypnotized   faint 
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:49 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Currently ongoing violations are a bit more pressing than past ones, don't you think?

But by your definition, past ones would also include those committed under GWBs administration.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Your hope of deflecting scrutiny and accountability from the Bush administration is futile

If both administrations committed these violations, should not both instances be investigated and both administrations be criticized?
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:56 am

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 1):
Wait a minute. First you deny it's happening, now it's all Clinton's fault?

They only occurred under Clinton.  rotfl 

But only GWB chased after OBL.

You see, up is down, east is west, and black is white. And Foley (R) is actually Foley (D).

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 2):
In fact, in another thread, I said that third countries had promised not to use methods of torture,

Yes, we don't trust Syria when it says the "sand is sandy," but when they say "the regime of Bashir Al Assad promises not to use torture," we do.

LOL LOL LOL LOL.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:03 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7):
Yes, we don't trust Syria when it says the "sand is sandy," but when they say "the regime of Bashir Al Assad promises not to use torture," we do

Did not some Democrats say that we should negotiate with Syria? Or North Korea? Should we trust them in these negotiations?
 
A332
Posts: 1421
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:58 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:20 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 8):
Did not some Democrats say that we should negotiate with Syria? Or North Korea? Should we trust them in these negotiations?

Might be in idea considering Afghanistan & Iraq are both clear examples of why shooting first and asking questions later isn't always the best choice.
Bad spellers of the world... UNTIE!
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:21 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
If both administrations committed these violations, should not both instances be investigated and both administrations be criticized?

Simple answer, yes.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 3:29 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 6):
If both administrations committed these violations, should not both instances be investigated and both administrations be criticized?

Exactly my point.

Just that investigation of the Bush administration's ongoing violations can probably prevent future ones.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:31 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7):
They only occurred under Clinton.   

No, nor did I say that.

The principle of precedent is critical in any investigation. That is, critics of the President must ask themselves: "Did this President exercise the prerogatives of his office in such a way that violated the past and accepted practices of previous Administrations?"

If the answer is in the negative, then it is in that direction that lies the end of the inquiry.

Sometimes I marvel at the ability of leftists to promote the idea that history and precedent began on January 20, 2001. But it didn't. It's quite a bit longer than that.

[Edited 2006-10-06 21:57:08]
What's fair is fair.
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:03 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
If the answer is in the negative, then it is in that direction that lies the end of the inquiry.

Ah, so as long as someone else did it first, its ok? I'm pretty sure that had this come out to any significant degree during the Clinton admin, there would have been just as much of an uproar - and likely from the right.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12):
Sometimes I marvel at the ability of leftists to promote the idea that history and precedent began on January 20, 2001. But it didn't. It's quite a bit longer than that.

And I marvel at the ability of Bush apologists to find no other answer to his actions than, "Well, x Did it Too!"
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:05 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 13):
Ah, so as long as someone else did it first, its ok? I'm pretty sure that had this come out to any significant degree during the Clinton admin, there would have been just as much of an uproar - and likely from the right.

Actually, when WJC bombed Yugoslavia, there were indeed murmurings of "wag the dog". But not from me.

I'm from the old school. I believe that politics stops at the water's edge. United we stand, and divided we fall.

Or, as Franklin said: "We must hang together, or we shall most assuredly all hang separately."

[Edited 2006-10-06 22:09:36]
What's fair is fair.
 
searpqx
Posts: 4173
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2000 10:36 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:57 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 14):
I'm from the old school. I believe that politics stops at the water's edge. United we stand, and divided we fall.

Yes, but you've made it clear that the only correct unity is that of the right. Those of us who disagree with this President and his administration, even though we're now in the majority, are 'misguided, wrongheaded, and essentially in some respects playing into the hands of the enemy'. But hey, despite all my failings, I'm still patriotic!  sarcastic 
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:56 am

Quoting Searpqx (Reply 15):
Yes, but you've made it clear that the only correct unity is that of the right.

The unity we have should support our national interests. It is not in our national interests to give inspiration to our enemies by showing our political will to be divided against itself. In fact, inspiring our enemies gives them strength with which to fight against our own soldiers. Does this result count for nothing?
What's fair is fair.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:07 am

Quoting Klaus (Reply 3):
Currently ongoing violations are a bit more pressing than past ones, don't you think?

Crime is crime, whenever it occurs - unless the statute of limitations has run. And even if you consider (understandably) the current renditions to be more important, we are talking about criticism of the use of renditions in the political context.

For the democrats to complain about Bush using rendition is the worst sort of hypocrisy. I didn't hear any democrats complaining about them when Clinton ordered them.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
DrDeke
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:13 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:08 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 16):

The unity we have should support our national interests. It is not in our national interests to give inspiration to our enemies by showing our political will to be divided against itself.

Some of us don't think it's in our national interest to start wars based on a pack of total and utter lies.

Some of us don't think it's in our national interest to start wars with no plan to win.

Some of us don't think it's in our national interest to torture people.

Some of us don't think it's in our national interest to tear up the Constitution of the United States.

Some of us don't think it's in our national interest to use rhetoric about "unity" to attempt to squash dissenting viewpoints.

-DrDeke
If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:08 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 16):
It is not in our national interests to give inspiration to our enemies by showing our political will to be divided against itself.

It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. I dont think there is much disagreement in the removal of the threat that Islamic fundamentalism can present to the Western world. A good discussion and criticism of this would concern the methods of achieving this aim. This to me is valid, patriotic, and required in any democracy.

What I find repugnant is unqualified criticism over what we are doing, w/o mentioning in passing that the end is agreed by both sides, if not the means. So when the enemy is using the same lines and criticism as the left side here, I dont like it.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:14 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 8):
Quoting Jaysit (Reply 7):
Yes, we don't trust Syria when it says the "sand is sandy," but when they say "the regime of Bashir Al Assad promises not to use torture," we do

Did not some Democrats say that we should negotiate with Syria? Or North Korea? Should we trust them in these negotiations?

The US (with Reps & Dems in their turn) negotiated with both the USSR & China for decades. And practiced "containment". Any you know what? There was no WW III, no bright flash downtown. We all lived.

And now there is an administration that won't talk to people it doesn't like. How childish. "I'll hold my breath until I turn blue if you don't go away."

Isreal, for God's sake, Israel sat down with the PLO. Sworn enemies negotiated an agreement. Because they talked. That it has gone to hell in a hand-basket is for many reasons, and there is blame enough on both sides.

Talking is good.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:30 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 19):
What I find repugnant is unqualified criticism over what we are doing, w/o mentioning in passing that the end is agreed by both sides, if not the means. So when the enemy is using the same lines and criticism as the left side here, I dont like it.

Agreed, AndesSMF. Agreed.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 20):
The US (with Reps & Dems in their turn) negotiated with both the USSR & China for decades. And practiced "containment". Any you know what? There was no WW III, no bright flash downtown. We all lived.

But both Russia and China were rational state actors. You're assuming that Iran is a rational state actor. Many people doubt that.

It is also questionable whether North Korea is rational, either.

[Edited 2006-10-07 01:30:50]
What's fair is fair.
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:36 am

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 20):
Isreal, for God's sake, Israel sat down with the PLO. Sworn enemies negotiated an agreement. Because they talked. That it has gone to hell in a hand-basket is for many reasons, and there is blame enough on both sides.

But in the end result talking here has not reached a result.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 20):
Talking is good.

Talking is always good, but talking to an irrational person will only frustrate you.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:15 am

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 22):
But in the end result talking here has not reached a result.

Due more to internal bickering, on both sides, rather than any innate desire on the part of Israeli or Palestinian citizens to simply fight each other ad nauseum. There are several principals whose names we all know, some living, some dead, who can share the blame. Putting personal privilege and power ahead of the nations interest is always a shabby way to go.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:47 pm

If Clinton's use is of it is a justification of rendition, do we expect the carpet in the Oval office to get an extra work out?

It matters not what Clinton did or did not do, sending prisoners to be tortured is not smart policy either in terms of immediate outcomes or longer term outcomes if any US personnel are ever held taken prisoner. The "intelligence" gained from torture is likely to be even more unreliable than that which it seems was common fare prior to the Iraq invasion. Maybe some of that lousy intell did come from torture, but we do know this Admin is never going to tell us if it did.
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:27 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
It matters not what Clinton did or did not do, sending prisoners to be tortured is not smart policy either in terms of immediate outcomes or longer term outcomes if any US personnel are ever held taken prisoner. The "intelligence" gained from torture is likely to be even more unreliable than that which it seems was common fare prior to the Iraq invasion. Maybe some of that lousy intell did come from torture, but we do know this Admin is never going to tell us if it did.

Of course it matters -- if nothing else, than for political reasons. The people who are criticizing the Administration now for maintaining rendition program are some of those who said nothing when the rendition program was begun in 1995 -- six years before the current President assumed office.

The related issue, as to whether torture is effective, is interesting, but it is the existence of the program itself that is of greatest interest. The history of the West hasn't been to use only "internationally accepted" means of apprehension; rather, it's been to use covert means, up to and including "kidnapping" of various elements deemed hostile to it.

I wish the world were as sunny as the left seems to portray it in the ideal, where all suspects are treated as if they were teenaged purse-snatchers best handled with kid gloves. But the world has never been what the left portrays it to be, and therefore it is not only unrealistic, but positively counterproductive to act as if it was otherwise.

Indeed, it is because of the stridently rhetorical excesses of the left that more reasonable critics of the United States have been dismissed out of hand, sometimes unfairly. When the left equates the U.S. with the Nazis, and terrorist suspects with garden-variety criminals, you know that something is off-kilter, and that anything the left says on the matter should be subject to great doubt accordingly.

[Edited 2006-10-07 17:30:15]
What's fair is fair.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:16 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 25):
Of course it matters -- if nothing else, than for political reasons. The people who are criticizing the Administration now for maintaining rendition program are some of those who said nothing when the rendition program was begun in 1995 -- six years before the current President assumed office.

I will try again. I was suggesting that it is the policy, not the administration that should be criticised.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 25):
The related issue, as to whether torture is effective, is interesting, but it is the existence of the program itself that is of greatest interest. The history of the West hasn't been to use only "internationally accepted" means of apprehension; rather, it's been to use covert means, up to and including "kidnapping" of various elements deemed hostile to it.

I must be forgetting some major trend of policy relating to kidnapping, but I am sure you will tel me what it it was/is - prior that is to the current CIA penchant for the practice.

I am still waiting to hear why terrorists cannot be considered under the laws we (all) had pre-2000. Plenty of terrorist movements were addressed using those laws. The German and Italian successes against quite serious terrorist movements come to mind.

I may be forgetting something, but I was under the impression that the German police used normal methods and laws to end the Bader Meinhoff gang. The UK seems to have succeeded with politics in its struggle against the IRA.

So why not treat terrorists as criminals? I really don't care which sort of garden they belong to.

Who is more likely to catch a guy wandering through NY with a suitcase nuclear bomb, the NYPD or the First Airborne Div? I know who I would sooner rely on. (Nothing against armies, just it is best to use them for real wars, not law enforcement.)

I also await evidence that the "intelligence" obtained from torturing suspects is worth a brass razoo. The FBI seems to think it is not, and they might just know a thing or two.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:24 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 24):
It matters not what Clinton did or did not do, sending prisoners to be tortured is not smart policy either in terms of immediate outcomes or longer term outcomes if any US personnel are ever held taken prisoner.

It DOES matter in the context of the domestic political attacks against Bush for the use of rendition. Clinton did it, and I don't recall leading democrats objecting. Now that Bush is doing it, it somehow has become this patently illegal act that we shouldn't be engaging in.

I love the smell of fresh hypocrisy in the morning.  Wink
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:14 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 27):
It DOES matter in the context of the domestic political attacks against Bush for the use of rendition. Clinton did it, and I don't recall leading democrats objecting. Now that Bush is doing it, it somehow has become this patently illegal act that we shouldn't be engaging in.



Quoting Halls120 (Reply 27):
I love the smell of fresh hypocrisy in the morning.

I think your nostrils are flared too far to one side to get a proper scent of hypocrisy. I am condemning both if they followed a policy of rendition; methinks you only criticise Slick Willy.

I don't get CNN (we have the much better CNNNN here, the Chaser news net) and the starter gave scant details. So I don't know what was known of the Clinton era rendition to whom.

I can find this link
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200512/s1539284.htm

"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. "

.......
"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. "

Both policies were illegal AND stupid. How is my hypocrisy index doin now?

By the way, the number on the ABC item 200512 indicates it is 2005 news. Now I wonder why it is being rehashed in late 2006. It could not possibly be anything to do with upcoming elections, no that would be the cynical sort of thing that only a leftie would do.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:47 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 28):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 27):I love the smell of fresh hypocrisy in the morning.
I think your nostrils are flared too far to one side to get a proper scent of hypocrisy. I am condemning both if they followed a policy of rendition; methinks you only criticise Slick Willy.

I'm not criticizing either Clinton or Bush for the policy. It is a necessary process which countries have engaged in for decades. I don't object to rendition as long as the subjects are provided due process, either through the normal domestic legal system or properly constituted military tribunal.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
JGPH1A
Posts: 15080
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 4:36 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:52 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 29):
t is a necessary process which countries have engaged in for decades.

Countries ? Or just the U.S. ? I wasn't aware of any other countries that undertook extraordinary rendition - do you have a list ?
Young and beautiful and thin and gorgeous AND BANNED ! Cya at airspaceonline.com, losers
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:37 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 26):
I will try again. I was suggesting that it is the policy, not the administration that should be criticised.

And the policy is one that is necessary because the terrorist suspects are often located other than on U.S. soil.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 26):
So why not treat terrorists as criminals? I really don't care which sort of garden they belong to.

Then we shouldn't have liberated Afghanistan, right?

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
Countries ? Or just the U.S. ? I wasn't aware of any other countries that undertook extraordinary rendition - do you have a list ?


The most famous case is probably that of Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchive/story/0,,1490375,00.html

How and where Eichmann was captured by Israeli agents in Argentina is described in the Wikipedia, as of this writing, under the entry under his name.

In a modern-day example, Charles Taylor, the former Liberian President, was taken by force from a foreign country and brought back to Liberia for trial:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentar...tice_comes_for_charles_taylor.html

Recently, Russia was said to have "renditioned" a suspect located in Tartarstan to Uzbekistan:

http://www.omct.org/base.cfm?page=ar...ws=9&cfid=4023200&cftoken=52610504

There's a partial list of other covert renditions provided in a negative context at the Wikipedia. Note that in the description in the first of the following links, the subjects of rendition were often killed, with the exception of renditions conducted by the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_disappearance

[Edited 2006-10-07 22:08:09]
What's fair is fair.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:40 am

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 30):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 29):t is a necessary process which countries have engaged in for decades.
Countries ? Or just the U.S. ? I wasn't aware of any other countries that undertook extraordinary rendition - do you have a list ?

Rendition - not extraordinary - has been part of maritime law enforcement for decades. We board a ship flying the flag of state X, and find illegal acts being committed on board. We both have jurisdiction, but state X doesn't want to prosecute, and turn the crew over to us. The same thing happens in reverse. We have dozens of bilateral agreements in force, and other countries have them with neighboring countries as well.

I have a list, but I'm not going to post it. All of the agreements are in the public domain, but it is not in the interest of law enforcement for me to post it.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Mon Oct 09, 2006 12:28 am

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 31):
Then we shouldn't have liberated Afghanistan, right?

You may need to check what is happening there. Changed the administration, possibly. Liberated, not yet.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 31):
And the policy is one that is necessary because the terrorist suspects are often located other than on U.S. soil.

Ah, now I understand, you are Country X, there is a SUSPECTED terrorist in country Y, so you need to kidnap him or her, and send them to country Z to ensure they are properly tortured, yes I see it all so much more clearly.

I presume you don't want to take them to Country X because you fear its justice system might not be in favour of something, such as kidnap, torture, or ......

That model does not seem to fit most of the examples you gave of other countries indulging in a spot of rendition.

I still don't quite know why a 2005 news item has suddenly become THE news. Are there a lot of slow readers around in CNN?
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:41 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 33):
You may need to check what is happening there. Changed the administration, possibly. Liberated, not yet.

The point is that military force was needed.

Also, you didn't address my points about Eichmann, et al.

Further, as I said, the U.S. does not send suspects to third countries to be tortured, but to be questioned with the proviso that they not be tortured.

[Edited 2006-10-09 23:42:49]
What's fair is fair.
 
seb146
Posts: 13905
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:53 am

I am getting sick and tired of the right saying "Well, Clinton did ______." I don't know if anyone on the right has noticed but:

CLINTON IS NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE!!!!!

When are you on the right going to understand that? Bush is president and there is plenty to suggest he is acting illegaly. Not because of Clinton. Bush is acting on advisement from his people: Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Cheney, Pearl, Wolfowitz.....

But not Clinton.

Clinton has nothing to do with Bush taking people and torturing them. Clinton has nothing to do with Abu Graib. Clinton has nothing to do with invading Iraq. Clinton has nothing to do with Osama living out his days in Pakistan. In fact, Clinton wanted to invade Afgainstan, but that idea was thrown out by Republicans!

Please keep in mind that Clinton is not president anymore.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:29 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 35):
Clinton has nothing to do with Bush taking people and torturing them. Clinton has nothing to do with Abu Graib. Clinton has nothing to do with invading Iraq. Clinton has nothing to do with Osama living out his days in Pakistan.

All correct. But democrats are criticizing Bush for using renditions, when in fact they were also used by Clinton when he was President.

Why were they OK when Clinton was President, and not OK now?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:18 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 34):

Also, you didn't address my points about Eichmann, et al.

Further, as I said, the U.S. does not send suspects to third countries to be tortured, but to be questioned with the proviso that they not be tortured.

Well no, because they are totally irrelevant to the current discussion. Eichmann was kidnapped, forcibly by Israeli agents and taken to Israel basically to be executed, not that it was not a reasonable trial, but once he was kidnapped, his execution was virtually inevitable.

Taylor is a more complex case and I really don't know the details. Not a nice guy, but again taken back to his country of origin for trial.

Not to a third country for torture.

If you believe the plan was not that the folk rendered to the third countries would not be tortured, you need to wake up. Hint, governments have been known to lie (not tell the truth).
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Tue Oct 10, 2006 5:41 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 37):
Well no, because they are totally irrelevant to the current discussion.

You asked me what other countries have practiced rendition, and I gave you several examples.

Now you make the distinction that in the Eichmann and Taylor examples, torture did not occur. But that wasn't a factor in your original request. And it is not official U.S. policy to approve the practice of torture by any country.

Whether or not torture did occur is not irrelevant to this discussion, but nevertheless, rendition is not intrinsically tied to the practice of torture, but merely forcible extrication and deportation to third countries.
What's fair is fair.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:49 pm

Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 38):

Now you make the distinction that in the Eichmann and Taylor examples, torture did not occur. But that wasn't a factor in your original request. And it is not official U.S. policy to approve the practice of torture by any country.

No, the reason they are/were not rendition is that they were "exported" to the country that was keen to detain them. They were not exported to a third country. That was the key difference, not the torture.

In your last para you have it correct. They have to be exported to a country different from that of the detaining power. Mind you, the movements of some of these guys have been so complex at the behest of the CIA that a simple definition of CIA rendition might be difficult - case in point Hicks, the country of rendition seems to have been a US warship and Afghanistan plus Cuba.

Eichmann - living in Argentina, kidnapped by Israelis and taken to Israel, not a third country. Had he been taken to Germany, he would have been tried there, but I presume not executed. Taking him to Israel does not constitute rendition as that was the country of the guys who kidnapped him. If he had been taken by them to Germany, this might have arguably been rendition.

However, torture does seem to be an essential and invariable element of rendition a la CIA whatever Mr Bush might say. In any event we know that his definition of torture still does not correspond with international norms, nor, it seems with those of one Sen McCain.
 
seb146
Posts: 13905
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:13 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):
Why were they OK when Clinton was President, and not OK now?

Nobody ever said it was okay for Clinton to render and torture people. It seems more pressing now only because some of these people are released and tell everyone how much the United States tortures. That makes us less safe. With as much torture is allegedly going on, that is making people think America is bad. We were supposed to be the shining beacon on the hill.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:42 am

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 40):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):
Why were they OK when Clinton was President, and not OK now?

Nobody ever said it was okay for Clinton to render and torture people.

You are missing the point. I'm NOT suggesting that rendition for torture is a good idea. Rendition alone IS appropriate in certain circumstances. I DO object to democrats criticizing Bush for something they apparently had no problem with when Clinton did it.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AerospaceFan
Topic Author
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:43 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Wed Oct 11, 2006 1:12 am

Quoting Baroque (Reply 39):
They were not exported to a third country. That was the key difference, not the torture.

You may have a point, there. I'll have to think about it.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 41):
I DO object to democrats criticizing Bush for something they apparently had no problem with when Clinton did it.

Excellently put.
What's fair is fair.
 
seb146
Posts: 13905
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:13 pm

This is interesting:

Dems have been the minority party for how many years? If they would have said something while Clinton was president, they would have been accused of being Conservative and/or abandoning their party. They said nothing to stay loyal to their party (possibly) as Republicans are doing, and they are criticized. It is a no-win situation for them. I wonder if renditions were done to the degree they are done now under Bush.

GO CANUCKS!!
Life in the wall is a drag.
 
RichPhitzwell
Posts: 1285
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 5:19 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Wed Oct 11, 2006 12:34 pm

I'm going to place this with voting irregularities.... I dont give a rats arse what party did/does this, its un-American.

On the D vs. R routine, lets grow a pair and hold each individual accountable regardless of our bias toward party lines. Maybe we need an Independent as a majority for once to, if nothing else, shake things up.

Signed,

D who is an ex R and is now becoming more I

[Edited 2006-10-11 05:37:15]
Nonav.com kinda like Whiners except the lights are on and the pimps been paid
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Wed Oct 11, 2006 3:06 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 40):
Nobody ever said it was okay for Clinton to render and torture people. It seems more pressing now only because some of these people are released and tell everyone how much the United States tortures. That makes us less safe. With as much torture is allegedly going on, that is making people think America is bad. We were supposed to be the shining beacon on the hill.

Very well put Seb, to which you could add the effect it has had on the external view of American justice. I suppose as soon as Bush started to thump the tub about its merits, you had to be suspicious that he would at the same time be undermining it.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 41):
Quoting Seb146 (Reply 40):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 36):
Why were they OK when Clinton was President, and not OK now?

They were not OK when Clinton did them. Subject to being wrong, I have not found anyone on this thread who said they were.

I don't know about others on this thread, but I simply did not know that it was going on in Clinton's time.

One has to wonder if perhaps the Reps had been looking at more general AND IMPORTANT matters, rather than Whitewater and what was going on under the President's desk, we might have learned of these things earlier, and been able to object then and there. I certainly would, had I known.

Obviously, I don't get to vote for either party, but like much of the rest of the world, have an interest in American being governed as well as is possible. We non-voters also have an interest in the impact that the US has on the rest of the world.

Rendition, whoever is doing it, has a negative impact. The main surprise is that so-far it does not seem to have spawned an equal and opposite tactic. Let us hope this lucky break continues!! We barely deserve to be so lucky.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Rendition Begun In 1995 By Pres. Clinton -- CNN

Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:16 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 43):
Dems have been the minority party for how many years? If they would have said something while Clinton was president, they would have been accused of being Conservative and/or abandoning their party.

Whether they were majority or minority is irrelevant. If they opposed what Clinton was doing, they should have spoken up. After all, in our system of checks and balances, isn't Congress supposed to check the White House? Or is party loyalty more important?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 45):
They were not OK when Clinton did them. Subject to being wrong, I have not found anyone on this thread who said they were.

I have said rendition is a permissible action on this board. Repeatedly.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 45):
Rendition, whoever is doing it, has a negative impact.

Not always. The US has practiced rendition in the maritime environment with other governments for the better part of the last 25 years, and it has been a two way street. And it has NEVER been successfully challenged in the US Supreme Court, and I've never heard of another country losing a similar challenge in theie courts.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ozglobal and 12 guests