Maybe we should also prosecute Bill Clinton for starting extraordinary rendition in 1995...

[ClarkUSA]

with a presidential directive that granted the C.I.A. permission. Can we see the memos regarding what the C.I.A. did under Pres. Clinton, too? Shouldn't Bubba be investigated also? After all, Bill Clinton was the first president to outsource torture. What's good
for Republican presidents who've violated the Constitution should be good for Democratic presidents who have done the same thing,
right?

Be careful what you ask for. According to Senator Feingold:

"The president has stated that it is not his administration's intention to prosecute those who acted reasonably and relied in good faith
upon legal advice from the Department of Justice. As I understand it, his decision does not mean that anyone who engaged in activities that the Department had not approved, those who gave improper legal advice or those who authorized the program could not be prosecuted. The details made public in these memos paint a horrifying picture and reveal how the Bush administration's lawyers and top officials were complicit in torture. The so-called enhanced interrogation program was a violation of our core principles as a nation and those responsible should be held accountable." The ACLU concurs.

Do Democrats really want to open this can of worms?

[TayTay]

1. There is an argument on the side of doing this

And it is a reasonable argument based on respect for the rule of law and international standards for the treatment of prisoners. I don't think that argument should be disparaged because it might end up "burning" Democrats.

The argument that we shouldn't turn over rocks because we might not like the creepy crawlies that come out is specious at best. We should turn over those rocks and actually confront what lives under them. We need a reckoning in the country and we need a way to confront what we did and what we have become in the last 60 years.

I wouldn't put off a murder trial because it was inconvenient to the defendants. I would not accept the logic that we just need to move on from that stuff and naively move forward. Sometimes you can't move forward until you have confronted the past.

[depakid]

3. Agreed

You know things are getting out of hand when people start becoming apologists for torture on DU.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Definitely.

I just wanted to put the shoe on the other foot to see how it fits -- for those who haven't thought of this possibility before.

[ProSense]

7. Exactly.

Now the torture apologists are going to say: well, we've tortured before.

Guess what: This evil bunch of creeps got caught, and they were warned.

No. Friggin. Torture.

Prosecute these assholes.

[rhett o rick]

11. Well said. We have to start somewhere, and as a free American I say START NOW and let the chips

fall where they may.

[AzDar]

2. We should also have him prosecuted for impersonating a Democrat.

;-)

[ClarkUSA]

13. lol!

;)

[Life Long Dem]

5. This could put an end to these idiot sore losers who complain about everything.

Even if the sky were falling I wouldn't listen to those idiots.

[Birthmark]

6. Yes. Open the can.

Whatever's in there needs to be exposed to the sunlight. It's a wonderful disinfectant.

[Wilms]

8. OK by me.

[redqueen]

9. Hah... nice one.

[glitch]

10. Open it. nt

[rhett o rick]

12. You ask: "Do Democrats really want to open this can of worms? "

I think the Democrats in Congress don't want anything to do with this. Mite cost them their parking place. They are in the corner with their fingers in their ears singing LaLaLa, hoping it will just go away.

But IMHO the grass roots Democrats want action taken against all that participated in this horrible torture. If we end up including Bil Clinton, well so be it. We as free Americans and grass roots Democrats need to yell loudly at our Congress-critters to wake up and work to prosecute all who tortured in our name.

[wyldwolf]

14. Sure, why not? This is what we'd discover

Scott Horton, who testified as an expert witness for the European Parliament on the matter of Bush-era extraordinary rendition and is a New York attorney known for his work in international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict, had this to say:

There are two fundamental distinctions between the programs (Clinton-era and Bush-era.) The (Bush) extraordinary renditions program involved the operation of long-term detention facilities either by the CIA or by a cooperating host government together with the CIA, in which prisoners were held outside of the criminal justice system and otherwise unaccountable under law for extended periods of time. A central feature of this program was rendition to torture, namely that the prisoner was turned over to cooperating foreign governments with the full understanding that those governments would apply techniques that even the Bush Administration considers to be torture. This practice is a felony under current U.S. law, but was made a centerpiece of Bush counterterrorism policy.

The (Clinton) earlier renditions program regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture. There are legal and policy issues with the renditions program, but they are not in the same league as those surrounding extraordinary rendition.

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/02/hbc-90004326

Dennis Kucinich recognized this when he introduced H.Res. 1258 on the House Floor, which were proposed articled of impeachment for GW Bush.

H.Res. 1258; Article XIX. Rendition; paragraph 5 (Congressional Daily Record Page H5202) states:

The administration has claimed that prior administrations have practiced extraordinary rendition, but, while this is technically true, earlier renditions were used only to capture people with outstanding arrest warrants or convictions who were outside in order to deliver them to stand trial or serve their sentences in the U.S.

Wasting even more tax money on another pointless Clinton investigation would serve one useful purpose - it would lay to rest another Right wing (and now, unfortunately, left wing) myth about Bill Clinton.

Sure, the Clinton-era policy was still a violation of International Law, but no one in the US would ever convict him for it.

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 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.'

After all, if asked, how many people would have been against snatching Osama Bin Laden in the 90s?

[ClarkUSA]

15. There was no "legal process" to extraordinary rendition under the Clinton & BushCo administrations.

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.

I'm pretty sure Egyptian Abu Talal al-Qasimi was beaten and tortured before he was executed, given Egypt isn't known for its exemplary human rights record, which was the point of having Egypt sign on to become the Clinton administration's first partner in the extraordinary rendition program in the mid-1990s.

[wyldwolf]

17. Which is why Al Gore 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."

No one is denying there isn't a legal process. No one is denying it isn't a violation of International law. However, I'm arguing it would be another in a long line of futile endeavors to try and prosecute Clinton for it. It would even be embarassing to those who attempted it.

[ClarkUSA]

18. "I'm arguing it would be another in a long line of futile endeavors to... prosecute Clinton for it."

Would that apply to Bush and Cheney as well, for similar reasons to what Al Gore suggested?

[wyldwolf]

19. I'm sure they would make that defense, even though experts have clearly shown...

... there is a difference is Clinton-era and Bush-era actions.

But IMO, the Bushies simply would not be convicted if they were brought to trial for it. Doesn't mean I don't think they're guilty because - they are. The political reality is Americans don't seem to have much affection for prosecuting our leaders.

[ClarkUSA]

21. But until we see Pres. Clinton's secret memos, we won't know what really happened, will we?

For example, I'd be very surprised if the Clinton administration's first victim of extraordinary rendition, Egyptian Abu Talal al-Qasimi, was not horribly beaten and tortured before he was executed, given Egypt isn't known for its exemplary human rights record, which was the point of having Egypt sign on to become the Clinton administration's first partner in the extraordinary rendition program in the mid-1990s.

But IMO, the Bushies simply would not be convicted if they were brought to trial for it... The political reality is Americans don't seem to have much affection for prosecuting our leaders.

Perhaps, perhaps not. My point is that if Democrats want BushCo to be prosecuted, then there's a case to be made that Bill Clinton and some in his administration could face the same music, so what do those DUers calling for BushCo's collective heads think of that possibility? So far, I haven't heard many (especially those who started OPs on this topic in the past 24 hours) chime in yet.

[wyldwolf]

22. Well, this is conjecture on both our parts

:shrug:

[frazzled]

16. Actually, the whole thing is more reminiscent to me of ...

the left's (well, a vocal portion of the left's) huge anger at Clinton for not reopening the Iran-Contra investigations. Poppy had abruptly put an end to things by pardoning Cap Weinberger. The hearings came to an end. Conspiracy theories (I'm talking about writers in The Nation) linked Clinton to Mena airport arms-running drug deals as a way of explaining why he never wanted to pursue this further.

The stakes were equally high, perhaps even higher: a private shadow government had been illegally trading arms with Iran and using the proceeds to conduct secret support to anti-Sandinista right wing rebels in Nicaraugua, all explicitly in violation of Congressional legislation that banned such aid. It was a shocking abridgment of the separation of powers, and an extra-constitutional operation.

We've had this discussion before. It's hard for a new president to come in and prosecute the previous administration. Not defending it or condemning it, just saying, this is how we treat our Democratic presidents: we lay the blame on them for the sins of their Republican predecessors.

[blm]

23. Clinton deepsixed many matters outstanding in IranContra, Iraqgate and BCCI - protecting GHWBush

and Jackson Stephens and Dubai and Saudi royals - CIA drugrunning out of Mena (where Clinton looked the other way) was the LEAST of it. Clinton wouldn't have even BEEN president in 1993 if HONEST Democrats like John Kerry hadn't uncovered and exposed much of what happened in IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning. Bush1 would have had his fascist agenda happily on pace by the mid90s, and he would have been credited with the entire dotcom bubble economy of that time.

But, Bush didn't WANT to win in 1992 because he knew Kerry's BCCI report beig released in Dec 1992 meant fuller exposure of his illegal operations in senate hearings, exposure of his global cronies, and CERTAIN impeachment in 1993.

Bill was HAPPY to step up and protect the bunch, especially for his political benefactor, Jackson Stephens - the man who BROUGHT the BCCI bank into the US.

[OwnedByFerrets]

20. Of course not....

If the president does it, it has to be legal.

:sarcasm: in case some dont get it.

[billyoc]

24. No.

Not maybe.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

25. LOL at the hypocrisy of the Clinton haters!

Anything they hated Clinton for before 2009, they suddenly forgive Obama for.

[ClarkUSA]

26. WTF are you talking about?