Quite frightening: Richard Clarke said Gore was in on extraordinary rendition.

[originalpckelly]

"'Snatches', or more properly '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.'" -This is a quotation from Wikipedia of Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, I will look for the book myself to confirm the quote.

Here is the Wikipedia entry with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Examples

Here is that book on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-All-Enemies-Inside-Americas/dp/0743260244

I distinctly remember posting about this when I first read it in the Wiki entry, but I didn't actually pay attention to the citation, and the fact that it was Richard Clarke, a person with lots of credibility in this area.

How do you feel about that, should it be true? (Which it probably is coming from Clarke.)

The poll question is only about if it is true, not whether or not it is.

[Horse with no Name]

1. That's the problem when we decide to start believing

what these former Republicans say.
He was an advisor to Clinton.
It seems like he is trying to blame Gore for what Clinton did.

[originalpckelly]

2. Those who voted:

"I have no problem with the fact that VP Gore thought it was a no-brainer."

You ought to be ashamed. There's no excuse for violating international law. This is complete lawlessness and I cannot believe someone on our side would think that way or approve of it.

[originalpckelly]

3. How selective we are in our outrage over abuses of power.

You ought to be ashamed, every one of you. Damnit, I can't believe people on our side think this way. :cry:

[DireStrike]

17. My selectivity:

Acting outside the law, bending the rules - happens all the time. The world wouldn't function without people doing it.

There is a big difference between breaking the rules to keep things moving along, and actively thinking up new ways to break the rules to push an agenda.

When I read "extraordinary rendition", I thought it was referring to the torture rendition out of the country. That I could never support. But taking people FROM other countries? That's a different animal entirely and should be given a separate term. I really have no problem with that practice and assumed that it always happened.


Of course, I think Clarke is probably more of a 'writer' type, adding embellishment and simplification to increase drama. I'm sure Gore had a more involved and nuanced argument in support of it. Assuming it's true.

[originalpckelly]

22. Oh good GOD! You cannot be saying this crap!

How dare you even go there?

HOLY CRAP! I cannot believe you would try to justify it!

Since when did extradition hearings become so non-functional that they can be ignored?

How hard is it for a country which wants to extradite someone to prove the charges against the person to be extradited?

[DireStrike]

37. I really don't know anything about rendition hearings

There are and always will be dark, lawless places in the corridors of power, especially in cases of criminality and justice. Or maybe I just watch too much TV. In any case I guess the problem, as you see it, is that nobody really knows what this means or implies. Law for law's sake is not a very persuasive argument, and that's really all people hear on these kinds of issues.

Would I want people taken from America? No, of course not. I trust my government (sort of) and our position in the world to keep that from happening, not the ideal of international law. Nobody follows that just because. It would be great to do so, but even in the best case scenario there will be exceptions.

I was going to say earlier, "what about Afghanistan or areas of Pakistan?" and indeed that seems to be the issue here. A perfect example of a case where rendition hearings would be difficult and there would be legitimate national security concerns. Law can never be absolute.

[northzax]

52. that is adorable

what about a country you don't have an extradition treaty with? what if the local government doesn't have much in the way of rule of law to go by?

for instance, most extradition treaties include various clauses to limit their power. No european country will extradite someone to the US, no matter the crime, if it is possible that person could face the death penalty. For instance, Osama bin Laden could be living in England, and could not be extradited to the US, because he faces capital murder charges. Israel, for instance, cannot extradite an Israeli citizen, no matter the crime. the US will not extradite someone to Cuba, no matter the crime, once they are on US soil. likewise, I am sure for Cuba to the US.

here, according to Wikipedia, is the list of countries the US has diplomatic relations with, but no extradition treaties:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China (People's Republic of China), Ciskei, The Comors, Cote d' Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Micronesia, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Oman, Qatar, Russian Federation, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Western Samoa, Yemen, Zaire, and Zimbabwe.

that's a pretty long list, don't you think? you can quite literally, set of a nuclear weapon in manhattan and move to any of the above countries, and be beyond the reach of US law. it's a big bad world out there, champ.

[DireStrike]

55. Wow, Russia and China?

That and some of the other countries add up to a significant portion of the Earth's surface. And they're pretty much everywhere, outside the western hemisphere anyway.

[northzax]

65. indeed

people think international law is some nice clean cut thing, but it really isn't. Without an extradition treaty, you are not really violating international law with a snatch (sure, you are violating local law, but that's another story)

remember when we extradited Milosevic? Noriega? Escobar? yeah, me neither.

[Horse with no Name]

4. In my wildest dreams

I can't imagine Gore ever saying anything to this effect.
Take it with a grain of salt.
I hardly believe it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Understanding that this man was an advisor to Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush tells me all I need to know.

[originalpckelly]

10. You know all the right-wingers were surprised when they heard the Watergate tapes...

and found out that Tricky Dick cussed every other word.

I hope you understand I said "should it be true?" for a reason. I wonder if there is a way I might be able to ask VP Gore some questions about this.

[otherlander]

19. Maybe those are Freeper lurkers?

I hope.

I vote Other. I don't know whether I really believe he said it or not. It might be complete bullshit and he actually didn't say it. If he did, it's very disappointing, but the ruling class has never been trustworthy.

[originalpckelly]

25. Yes, especially when it's clear that I asked "if this is true"...

not whether it is. I cannot believe people would try to justify it.

[otherlander]

44. It's true that

what Gore suggested isn't the same as what Bush is doing: taking someone to America, rather than sending them to a lawless country. But still, it's dissapointing that people here think that's okay.

[jobycom]

47. I voted that way, and I'm not ashamed of it.

Clinton, Gore, Carter, JFK, LBJ, probably FDR, all did similar things. Hell, I'm sure Ghandi broke a few laws and violated a few rights to prevent deaths, too. Clinton fired missiles into two countries and sent commandos into one to get UBL. Was that wrong? Same policy. What if he'd gotten UBL? Then no 9-11, no excuse to invade Afghanistan or Iraq. That's something to be ashamed of? How many UBLs did he get? You don't think the Millenium Plot was really thwarted by an accidental discovery by a Canadian border guard, do you? Or that Ramsi Yusef's plot to blow up eleven airliners at the same time was really discovered because of an accidental fire in Yusef's apartment?

Sorry. It's the way the world works. A mass murderer knows that certain countries will protect him while others will turn him over, all because of political connections and alliances. He tries to flee to those countries who won't turn him over. We should just let him go because he runs to an enemy instead of an ally?

The problem is the way Bush does it. With other presidents, it has been "extraordinary" rendition, with Bush it is routine. With others it has been a last resort for gauranteed criminals. With Bush it has been a fishing expedition. There's a big difference. I like my leaders to know when a law must be broken for the good of the many. I don't like my presidents to break laws just because they don't have any respect for the law.

[DireStrike]

51. Thanks for articulating the difference

between Bushco and others. I couldn't really do it without bringing up D&D alignments. :dunce:

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. I don't believe he said it. n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. The problem of course, is that "The guy is a terrorist." isn't

necessarily so. Unless the rule of law is followed, all sorts of fish get caught in the net. Gore really ought to know better than this.

[janx]

7. Are you aware of the fact that Clinton tried to

"take out" Bin Laden?

[WinkyDink]

8. 1993. I'd like to know who was the target, if he was a known terrorist, like Carlos.

Or one of the Munich Olympics killers.

[originalpckelly]

12. It doesn't matter. Snatching is illegal under international law...

would you want someone to come to the USA and snatch one of us without an extradition hearing?

[janx]

45. It depends on what the international law is at the time.

Have you checked? And have you answered my question about what Clinton did re Bin Laden?

[hughee99]

9. Clarke only has credibility when he says something

that fits in to my perception of how things are (or should be). When he says something that doesn't jibe with what I'd like to hear, he's a lying repuke partisan hack. I determine who's credible based on who tells me what I want to hear. :sarcasm:

[BayCityProgressive]

20. Why would this be a shocker

most of our politicians unfortunately break the law. besides, the Clintons and Gor all support the death penalty so why wouldn't they support torture?

[hughee99]

24. Frankly, the biggest surprise isn't

what Clarke claims Gore said, it's the number of people who are quick to paint Clarke as a repuke partisan who cannot be believed. I don't recall anyone suggesting Clarke has a credibility problem when the 9/11 hearings were going on, or in any of his subsequent criticisms of the current administration.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. This is an accurate quote from Clarke's book.

I can verify that.

However, I disagree that what Gore's agreeing with here is properly called "extraordinary rendition". He's saying to go get the guy, not export him to a country that will torture him. The wiki article is mislabeling this.

On edit: Sorry, the equating of "snatches" to "extraordinary rendition" is done by Clarke. Did the Bush Administration change the meaning of this phrase?

[originalpckelly]

16. It doesn't matter. Snatching people is against international law.

Just ask yourself one question:
"Would I want a foreign country to snatch me up without an extradition hearing?"

[EFerrari]

18. Yes, I think you're right. Wiki is mislabeling this. n/t

[northzax]

38. I agree

this is not nessesarily an extraordinary rendition. I have no real problem with snatching and returning someone to the US, I do have a problem with extraordinary rendition, defined as snatching and sending to a third party.

a question, for those who oppose the concept of snatching as a general rule: was Israel wrong to snatch Eichmann from BA in 1960? seriously, look into your soul and condemm that violation of international law. Your option, of couse, is also Israeli, the assassination of Agu Jihad in Algiers in 1987. in both cases, you have a state that is harboring, basically openly, someone who is guilty of a serious crime (Eichmann the obvious naxi holocaust connection, Abu Jihad with the 72 Munich Olympics atrocity.) Sad as it is to say, some people just need to be brought to justice, and they will always find states to harbour them. So which is it? snatching or assassination? sometimes you gotta do one or the other.

[Pirate Smile]

48. Some more info I found:

OUTSOURCING TORTURE
The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.

by JANE MAYER
Issue of 2005-02-14
Posted 2005-02-07

-snip-

Rendition was originally carried out on a limited basis, but after September 11th, when President Bush declared a global war on terrorism, the program expanded beyond recognition—becoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, “an abomination.” What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects—people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants—came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms “illegal enemy combatants.” Many of them have never been publicly charged with any crime. Scott Horton, an expert on international law who helped prepare a report on renditions issued by N.Y.U. Law School and the New York City Bar Association, estimates that a hundred and fifty people have been rendered since 2001. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, said that a more precise number was impossible to obtain. “I’ve asked people at the C.I.A. for numbers,” he said. “They refuse to answer. All they will say is that they’re in compliance with the law.”


http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050214fa_fact6?050214fa_fact6

[madrchsod]

13. shit...they are under attack by the cylons

does`t look good.......oh the rendition? wait..starbucks is ok....i think this shit has gone on ever since tribes decided to wage war on another tribe....

[DireStrike]

41. Thanks

... I think. This is nothing new. Maybe not legal but...

[nam78_two]

14. I would need more proof before I believed it

And I haven't even read the book. I don't want to go by a wiki entry on a book I have never read it.

Even the hearsay stuff about Bush wouldn't in itself lead me to have the opinion I have of him, if there wasn't such a lot of proof to back it up. This seems like some completely unsubstantiated statement by a former Republican. Gore has been a strong critic of the military abuses in Guantanemo Bay and of the CIA secret prisons...

[illinoisprogressive]

15. I've heard the clinton administration had some dealings in this.

Just some info. I haven't seen alot. But, I've heard of this. and Richard Clark has no reason to lie as he has no ill feelings for that administration. And he's a pretty straight up guy

[originalpckelly]

21. nam78_two, I cannot reply to your post...

did you block me? Why? What did I do?

Anyway, the poster in reply #11 has verified that this is a real quote from the book.

[nam78_two]

26. I don't think so...

hold on...

[originalpckelly]

29. Now I can reply...

WEIRD! :rofl:

It happened once before too, on another thread you started. I was puzzled, because I didn't even recall speaking with you. :-)

[nam78_two]

33. Me neither

I am also clumsy and use the options very randomly..buddy list, ignore (those two are too close to each other) and so on..

Though I am surprised about this one since I presumably went in and specifically blocked you I guess...I don't see how else it could be but I certainly didn't intend to..

[nam78_two]

28. Sorry..I certainly didn't block you intentionally

:shrug:

Apologies...

[originalpckelly]

31. Hey, don't worry about it, we need a safety on this thing...

:rofl:

It's like a gun or something!

[nam78_two]

34. LOL.nt

[salin]

23. should it be true...

*deep breath and sad sigh* D%mn. Seriously. Has been my first choice, but this reaction to a precedent setting action - really gets to the core (because of the precedent setting). D*mn, I hope that it isn't true - but it set my radar up to pay much more close attention on this issue.

[originalpckelly]

27. I think we need to get to the bottom of this...

we can't simply let this allegation go by without looking into it. There must be some type of proof that this happened and that the US engaged in an extraordinary rendition.

[salin]

35. agreed - need data/verification.

[originalpckelly]

39. napi21 has the book...

and says this passage is about Bin Laden. I can understand this, it's one of those "would you kill Hitler" questions.

[napi21]

30. I have the book. I just pulled it off the shelf. The quote is from page

144, and they were talking about Bin Laden! For as long as I've watched, heard, and listened to Richard Clarke, he has never once given me reason to disbelieve anything he said. I have the book on my lap as I type. This is exactly what Clarke wrote, and I believe him.

[originalpckelly]

36. Oh well, that does explain it then.

It would make sense if Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and they couldn't have an extradition hearing. Though I wonder why Lloyd Cutler would oppose going after Bin Laden? There must be more to this, which I don't understand. Was Bin Laden even on the radar in '93?

[napi21]

42. Yes. Clinton etc. knew he was behind the first hit on the WTC.

Yea, they got the Sheik and tried, convicted him, and imprisoned him. But they also knew Bin Laden was behind it as well as the many other bombings of US facilities around the World. Clinton wanted to get him!

[northzax]

53. no he wasn't

please. there is nothing remotely resembling evidence that Bin Laden was connected to the first WTC bombings.

[Selatius]

57. Guilt by association doesn't hold up in the courtroom.

The sheikh who went to prison for the WTC attack did have contacts with Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, but there was no evidence that Al Qaeda hatched the 1993 plot at all. That was likely under the sheikh's initiative, not Bin Laden's.

[Swamp Rat]

32. It is important to note that Wikipedia is often manipulated to give erroneous

or false information about certain people and politicians.

Nevertheless, I will support Al Gore if he runs in 2008. After all, he was elected by We the People to be the 43rd President of the United States, but the Supreme Court intervened.

[nolabels]

40. Other here, and this is one that takes the cake too

I wish Al Gore was that kind of person that would cheat a little to gain a little advantage (or at least a little insight on why others would by doing it once or twice). I have think Bill Clinton might have done that a couple or so times but goody-two-shoes Al Gore :shrug:

[BlueIris]

43. Other: There is no way I believe Gore said that.

Although it's interesting that Clarke has either been a) trying to tear down Gore by defaming his image with his base or b) trying to bolster support for a potential Gore candidacy by helping Gore bolster his image with ex-Republican conservatives looking to vote for someone who is anti-war, but er, "pro-security."

[KeepItReal]

49. I read Clarke's book and he was generally positive about Clinton/Gore's record on anti-terror

He clearly shows the distinction between Clinton/Gore at least *trying* to deal with Al Qaeda in some fashion vs. Bush & Co. who buried their heads in the sand on the whole issue.

[KeepItReal]

46. That quote by Gore actually got my respect. The "snatch" led to a trial and conviction, I believe

...Not locking someone up in Gitmo/Afghanistan with no formal charges nor access to counsel nor acknowledgment that the capture even occurred (Bush & Co style).

You need to put the entire context of the conversation from Richard Clarke's book into your post. You're leaving out lots of details.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Wow. Maybe he is running, after all.

It would explain the sudden desire to dogpile on the guy from some corners.

[originalpckelly]

54. Yes, I work for Hillary.

:rofl:

No, I've posted about this once before, but I went back to check up on the article and there was a citation for it finally, not just some random quote which I knew nothing about.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. I knew it!

Anyway, I'd need some more context before condemning the guy for something that allegedly took place 14 years ago. "extraordinary rendition" as practiced by the Bush Administration isn't, presumably, taking place in a vacuum. As noted upthread, the guy in question in Clarke's book got openly tried and convicted- he wasn't "disappeared" and tortured. There's a difference.

[otherlander]

73. No, the Wiki entry said that last year, too.

[KoKo]

56. It's hard to know from a second party source the context of what

Gore meant. The situation and the circumstances. But, I'm a believer in getting all the stuff out about every candidate. We tried with Bush II and it didn't work...and every candidate must be scrutinized and every quote fairly reported and questions asked. We need to know more about our candidates of the future than we've asked in the past and we don't want the MEDIA to inform us and distort it before we've had a chance to get on top of things.

I'm a Gore supporter, btw.

[originalpckelly]

62. I would be too, if this is not what I think it might be.

He's about the only one with the experience who interests me.

[Son Of Spy]

58. goto 10

10 Wikipedia is not a source.

20 Ergo this is at MOST an allegation.

goto 10

[originalpckelly]

63. It's a real quote, but it was not in appropriate context...

at least that's what several of the books readers have maintained. I'm going to read it myself to get the full context of it.

[KoKo]

59. It's hard to know from a second party in a quote in a book what

Gore meant. The situation and the circumstances. But, I'm a believer in getting all the stuff out about every candidate. We tried with Bush II and it didn't work because the Media covered it all up. But each candidate in the future should be scrutinized and every quote fairly reported and questions asked. We need to know more about our candidates of the future than we've asked in the past and we don't want the MEDIA to inform us and distort it before we've had a chance to get on top of things.

I'm a Gore supporter, btw.

[janx]

60. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source.

The information on wiki has not been peer reviewed or vetted in any sense of those terms. Political topics, especially, are open to bias, as anyone may post them.

[originalpckelly]

66. It's not only Wikipedia...

several posters before have confirmed the quote, but they have argued it was not in appropriate context, which speaks to your comment on the bias in Wikipedia.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

61. I guess no-one's perfect. All the candidates have their bad points.

n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

67. By this definition, Eichmann was "extraordinarily rendered", too.

Sorry, I don't have a problem with that.

[northzax]

69. not by the modern definition

Eichmann was snatched, but he was returned to the country that snatched him and stood trial. in modern terms, extraordinary rendition is sending someone to a third party for interrogation outside the rules of the snatching country.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Gotcha. Thanks.

Still, I think there's a difference between snatching someone to be put on trial openly, and spiriting them away to be tortured and disappeared. And I'd like to get more of the context on this Gore thing.

[MannyGoldstein]

68. 'Snatching' is Fine. Outsourcing Torture is Another Thing Entirely

If we 'snatch' someone who we can't get extradited, and give them a proper trial, that's fine in some cases.

I'd be curious if Gore was involved in the Clinton Administration's pioneering work in outsourcing torture (started in 1995, I think) - that would definitely NOT be OK.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Thank you. Think if President Gore had responded to 9-11 by snatching Osama & putting him on trial.

I think that would have made a lot more sense than what Bush did.

[fujiyama]

72. This quote by itself is absolutely meaningless

I'm amused that people are now attacking Clarke as "unreliable" or a "partisan hack". The man was the first person to take on the myth of Bush being the man in charge on 9/11. He's one of the most credible inside witnesses to this administration's incompetence before AND after 9/11.

The key questions are:

1) What country was this alleged terrorist residing in? I would assume that it was in a country that had no extradition treaty with the US.

2) What was this terrorist wanted for? Was he alleged to have been responsible for any attacks?

3) Was the US going to bring him back to the US for trial or export him to a third party for interrogation (i.e. torture)? Obviously, it's problematic and very disturbing if Gore believes in outsourcing torture...

I have not read Clarke's book (I should sometime) so I do not know the context of his inclusion of the quote, but my guess is that Clarke was trying to make a point about Gore being in the loop at all times and being well aware of anti-terrorism efforts by the Clinton administration. I know there were quite a few actions by the Clinton administration that weren't completely clean and that probably violated international norms on a few occasions. But if anyone says there is no difference between how this administration and the previous one acted internationally, they are beyond stupid.

As several have stated, "snatching" is the only option at times to bring certain criminals to justice. As long as that person is given due process under a court of law, this is not really a problem.

[NNN0LHI]

74. Two Dem Senators voted to attack Iraq in 1991 which started all this shit

Gore and Lieberman.

Then Gore picked Lieberman to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

I like Al and all but...

Don

[cool user name]

75. Not enough information for me to cast a vote ...

... If it is true, it's troubling. However, this was in 1994. Perhaps, he's had a change of opinion since then?

:shrug: