Thursday, February 5, 2009

The Panetta "Renditions" Farce

CIA Director nominee Leon Panetta told a Senate committee on Thursday that the Obama administration will not conduct the same kind of "extraordinary rendition" that were allowed under the Bush administration.

But of course - as I've noted previously on this blog - Leon Panetta was Chief of Staff in the Clinton administration when the "extraordinary rendition" program actually began.

Nevertheless, some within the mainstream media - like the Examiner's Jay McDonough - have been duped by former Obama adviser, Richard Clarke, who maintains that the kind of "rendition" program that was permitted during Bush's tenure never took place during the Clinton years.

McDonough says that when it was first announced that Panetta would head up the CIA, he "praised Mr. Panetta as a great choice; a proven manager and a clear opponent to the use of torture." But, he says "when it was later reported that Mr. Panetta, as President Clinton's Chief of Staff, was involved in the expanded use of rendition" he started having second thoughts on the matter:
"Torture, whether conducted in our name in some rat filled basement in Cairo or some nice clean cell in Guantanamo is morally reprehensible and illegal. And those who engage in rendition or torture are unfit to occupy public office."
McDonough states that it was an op-ed column in the Boston Globe - written by Richard Clarke - that finally put his mind at ease about Panetta and his upcoming gig in the CIA.

Clarke, in his op-ed, cites several instances - primarily during the Clinton years - where terror suspects had been arrested abroad and returned to the US to stand trial. But according to Clarke, suspected terrorists were never moved to foreign countries during the Clinton administration.

"Although all renditions have become controversial," Clarke contends, "these examples did not involve dragging criminals to a third country for torture or interrogation. ... In these cases, the country in which the criminals were arrested waived their own extradition process and handed them over to US officials on the guarantee that they would be brought to the United States and afforded the same rights of the accused in the US justice system."

Unfortunately, Jay McDonough has allowed himself to be conned by Richard Clarke's chicanery. Hence, we will attempt to clear this matter up once again, and hopefully, Mr. McDonough will take heed and never again let himself be hoodwinked by shysters, the likes of Richard Clarke.

As I noted back in January, Michael Scheurer - a 22-year veteran of the CIA, who resigned from the agency in 2004 and headed the CIA unit that tracked Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from 1996 to 1999, developed and led the "renditions" program. According to Scheurer, the renditions program [during the Clinton years] included moving prisoners without due legal process to countries without strict human rights protections.

"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee," Scheurer said in 2005. "The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."

So, when it comes to defining the true nature of the 'renditions' program under Bill Clinton, who should we trust? Richard Clarke, an Obama adviser and avid critic of the Bush administration? Or Michael Scheurer, the CIA veteran who actually developed and led the "renditions" program?

I think you know the answer.........

Update: According to the New York Times, Mr. Panetta told the senate panel today that the CIA "would continue the Bush administration practice of “rendition” — picking terrorism suspects off the street and sending them to a third country. But he said the agency would refuse to deliver a suspect into the hands of a country known for torture or other actions “that violate our human values.”

But I suppose Mr. Panetta would be willing to ship off terror suspects to those "rat filled basements in Cairo", wouldn't he?

"In Cairo, people are not treated like they are in Milwaukee," Scheurer said in 2005. "The Clinton administration asked us if we believed that the prisoners were being treated in accordance with local law. And we answered, yes, we're fairly sure."

Ultimately, these people are nothing but a bunch of evasive, equivocal and fallacious phonies. But of course, the pundits in the mainstream media [who, for months on end, have eviscerated the Bush administration over this issue] will undoubtedly give the Obamalytes a pass on this one too....

1 comment:

Ted said...

Since Obama’s earnest drive to convince the nation to weaken its economic strength through redistribution as well as weaken its national defense, has confirmed the very threats to our Republic’s survival that the Constitution was designed to avert, it no longer is sustainable for the United States Supreme Court and Military Joint Chiefs to refrain from exercising WHAT IS THEIR ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM UNLAWFUL USURPATION. The questions of Obama’s Kenyan birth and his father’s Kenyan/British citizenship (admitted on his own website) have been conflated by his sustained unwillingnes to supply his long form birth certificate now under seal, and compounded by his internet posting of a discredited “after-the-fact” short form ‘certificate’. In the absence of these issues being acknowledged and addessed, IT IS MANIFEST THAT OBAMA REMAINS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Being a 14th Amendment “citizen” is not sufficient. A “President” MUST BE an Article 2 “natural born citizen” AS DEFINED BY THE FRAMERS’ INTENT.