Why isn't Hillary in jail ?

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, November 2, 2007 19:47
VIEWED: 6241
PAGE 2 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:01 AM

"the World Trade Center ... "

Didn't he authorize an extraordinary rendition, and didn't his administration catch the guys, have them tried in a court of law, and put in jail ? And weren't his anti-terror activities partially addressed in another thread?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31124 Beginning in 1995 ... about 70 renditions were carried out before Sept. 11, 2001, most of them during the Clinton years.

In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators – including Ramzi Yousef – were convicted for their part in the bombing and were given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each.

***************************************************************
And then there's the famous Bush success in protecting the US from 9/11 - NYC, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, getting bin Laden "I don't think about him much anymore" and disrupting his network "U.S. intelligence - al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

RUE

Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:03 AM

And what were the "dozen etcs" ??

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:10 AM

You know, I been dying to say it, and refrained in case actual discussion happened here...

Q: "Why isn't Hillary in jail ?"
A: Cause they don't want her either!

(Cue rimshot)

RUE

Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:24 AM

Damn ! I missed that one ... woulda coulda shoulda ....

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:23 AM

And I've been avoiding the obvious answer of
'Friends in high places.'

JARHEAD

Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:41 AM

Hey guys before you get too into tearing each-other to pieces over a load of human waste that doesn't deserve you loyalty, please stop for a second and think about whether you anger is really being directed in the right place.

Ask yourself, just who is it that has presided over us the last few decades and how many scandals that never go anywhere have their been? And which is it that has been implicated in most of them?

Answer: The Republicrats and the Demicans.

They both are corrupt to the core, and while most of America keeps themselves entertained with whatever is on TV, the few of us try to keep up with what's going on have been pitted against eachother specifically to avoid us channeling our collective anger towards THEM.

Why isn't Hillary in jail ? Easy, she knows where enough bones are buried. Why isn't Ted Stevens in jail? He's paid off the right people. And William "First Bank of the Icebox" Jefferson, and Nixon, and so on. Do yourselves a favor next time you vote. Come this November find a name that doesn't say "incumbent", and make your mark accordingly. Don't worry about whether they can win, don't worry about their party affiliation, just vote against whoever it is that currently has whatever office is up for grabs. Or to quote better men than I:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.
-Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788

In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character....
-Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education, 1789

I’m never serious. Serious means something bad is about to happen.

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

LEADB

Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:45 AM

Even better; well before the election, find out who those people are going to be and get some signs out in front of your house advocating them. Start a write-in campaign for your district's house seat or your state's senate seat.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"the World Trade Center ... "

Didn't he authorize an extraordinary rendition, and didn't his administration catch the guys, have them tried in a court of law, and put in jail ? And weren't his anti-terror activities partially addressed in another thread?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31124 Beginning in 1995 ... about 70 renditions were carried out before Sept. 11, 2001, most of them during the Clinton years.

In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators – including Ramzi Yousef – were convicted for their part in the bombing and were given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each.

Bush rendition BAD, Clinton rendition GOOD.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Bush rendition BAD, Clinton rendition GOOD.

Dummyrats make up the rules as they go along to suit whatever MR. SOROS & HIS MONEY TELL THEM TO. Political opportunists of the lowest order. Makes my skin crawl....yech!

RUE

Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:45 PM

2. People who are "rendered" inevitably end up in a foreign slammer -- or worse.

Actually, that's not a foregone conclusion. Alvarez was brought to the United States. So was Mir Aimal Kansi, who killed two CIA employees in their cars outside the agency's Langley headquarters in 1993, and Ramzi Yousef, the architect of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center (ie during Clinton's terms). Both were apprehended in Pakistan, whose leaders decided that the nation would rather not have those two -- folk heroes to some -- sitting in jail, awaiting extradition. Pakistan's leaders feared that cooperating with the United States would be dangerously unpopular, so they wanted the suspects out of the country quickly. For many pro-U.S. Muslim leaders, that concern has only deepened as anti-Americanism has soared.

By my count, most renditions since 1995 have involved moving individuals from one foreign country to another -- not grabbing someone in Washington and carting them off to North Africa, as happens to Witherspoon's onscreen husband. Such operations typically occur in secret because, again, Muslim leaders (especially in the Arab world) want to shield their cooperation with Washington from their anti-American publics. The CIA has acted as a go-between, arranging the transfers and providing transportation. Usually those being rendered are not brought to the United States because, while the U.S. government may have an abundance of intelligence showing their malfeasance, it doesn't have enough courtroom evidence. There's a big difference between the two.

One other safeguard: During the Clinton years, the United States required the country that received a rendered person to have some kind of legal process against the suspect -- an arrest warrant or indictment, for example. It's not clear whether that is still the case. Perhaps Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general nominee, can check.

3. Step one of a rendition involves kidnapping the suspect.

The individual may feel as though he's being kidnapped, but that's not usually what's going on. Most of the time, the person is detained by the authorities of the country he is in. They will then hand him off to the CIA, who will fly him to his destination.

In rare cases when the country of residence is a hostile one, an "extraordinary rendition" can be carried out: a covert effort to abduct the suspect and spirit him out of the country. The CIA put considerable time into efforts to capture Osama bin Laden this way from Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in the late 1990s. Had it worked, it would have been an extraordinary rendition -- and Americans would have cheered.

4. Rendition is just a euphemism for outsourcing torture.

Well, not historically. The guidelines for Clinton-era renditions required that subjects could be sent only to countries where they were not likely to be tortured -- countries that gave assurances to that effect and whose compliance was monitored by the State Department and the intelligence community. It's impossible to be certain that those standards were upheld every time, but serious efforts were made to see that they were. At a minimum, countries with indisputably lousy human rights records (say, Syria) were off-limits. Another key difference: Renditions before Bush were carried out to disrupt terrorist activity, not to gather intelligence or interrogate individuals.

Now, though, the Bush team seems to have dramatically eroded such safeguards. The administration has apparently sent someone to Syria, and Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen, was evidently boosted in Macedonia and interrogated in Afghanistan in a manner that sure sounds like torture. In light of this and other revelations, the criticism that the administration has "defined down" torture looks pretty persuasive. It's probably a good bet that Congress or the next administration will reform the program, or abolish it outright.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/19/AR2007
10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE