CBS Frets Over 'Dark Stain' of Bush CIA's 'Troubling' Activities in Libya
On Saturday's CBS Evening News, correspondent Barry Petersen filed a report which highlighted Human Rights Watch's analysis of government records in Libya which document that, during the Bush administration, the CIA sent prisoners to Libya as part of its renditioning program. Anchor Russ Mitchell saw the papers as potentially "troubling" as he introduced the report:
Overseas now, newly discovered documents in Libya suggest the regime of ousted dictator Muammar Qaddafi had a working relationship with the CIA. Barry Petersen in Tripoli tells us the once-secret papers could prove troubling.
Correspondent Petersen showed a clip of Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch tying in former President Bush and former Defense Secretary Doanld Rumsfeld, calling the program a "dark stain on American history." Bouckaert:
Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Saturday, September 3, CBS Evening News :
RUSS MITCHELL: Overseas now, newly discovered documents in Libya suggest the regime of ousted dictator Muammar Qaddafi had a working relationship with the CIA. Barry Petersen in Tripoli tells us the once-secret papers could prove troubling.
BARRY PETERSEN: Strewn all over the place, the secrets of Libya's spy masters and torturers and how the CIA and British intelligence apparently worked hand in hand from 2003 and 2004 with the man then in charge - Musa Kusik - then head of Libyan intelligence. And later as foreign minister, he was the first high-profile defection from Qaddafi's regime. The documents, discovered and analyzed by Human Rights Watch.
PETER BOUCKAERT, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: This is at the height of Bush and Rumsfeld's rendition campaign. It's a dark stain on American history.
PETERSEN: Rendition means that U.S. prisoners captured in Iraq or Afghanistan were sent to third countries where sometimes prisoners being interrogated were subjected to torture. In one case, the Americans arranged for this man - Abdel Hakim Bel-Haj - to be captured in Bangkok and then transferred to Libya as a suspected terrorist. One document apparently from the CIA says, quote, "We must have assurances from your government that he will be treated humanely and that his human rights will be respected."
BOUCKAERT: It's just words on paper.
PETERSEN: And that did not happen?
PETERSEN: Bel-Haj is now a commander of rebel forces in Libya and told reporters he bears no ill will towards the CIA. Both British intelligence and the CIA refused to confirm or deny their authenticity. Amid the documents, a silly moment, British agents arranging that then-Prime Minister Tony Blair would meet Qaddafi in a tent while visiting Tripoli. As the document says:
BOUCKAERT: The plain fact is that the journalists will love it.
- Brad Wilmouth's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
So, more or less of a stain than Obama's warrantless droning?
Submitted by merly1 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:17pm.
Has Peter come out for or against Owebomba's aggressive use of drone attacks
against suspected enemies, and of course any innocent bystanders in the bad guy's vicinity?
Let's see if CBS covers this.....
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 7:35am.
Libyan rebels rounding up black africans as suspected Khadaffi supporters. This won't get a word on CBS or a word from the White House either. Obama admin takes out one loon and replaces withGod know what. There will be a lot of blood spilled after this thing is settled and the WH will remain mum. Hey well at least it's over except for the retribution killings. Another good job Hussein.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Nothing but conjecture
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:35pm.
....reported as fact.
I notice no mention of the Bush administration "dark stain" policy which, without a shot fired in anger, caused Col. Daffy to voluntarily give up his WMD.
To these journOlisters, I'd pose this question....what would Col. Quadaffi have done to the rebels had he still possessed WMD? Would Obama have been so eager to start up his little non-war in Libya?
Finally, I'd say it is absurd on its face to present this as a CIA led initiative in Libya. No doubt in my mind that it was the Brits who took the lead here, they've been in the region forever, their SAS was born there, and had boots on the ground at least a month before the first bomb was dropped. Again, we're getting lies by omission from the media....pointing the finger at Bad Bush to hopefully save Boy Blunder.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Great point Blonde
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:43pm.
This is a pathetic report to begin with, even without your addition.
They continue to prove there irrelevancy.
You think I added to that?
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:48pm.
Read what Gary Hall just wrote.
Pesky Fact Man strikes again.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Saw it
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:51pm.
Amazing
Here's a pesky fact for ya . . he he
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:24pm.
Just picked a 18 1/2 inch cucumber - Japanese variety.
And when I watch these clowns on CBS, I forgot about salad for a minute.
(;~> gary
Gardening for me
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:01pm.
...begins for real in about three weeks!
Yay, hot and humid is almost behind us.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Rendition - a dark stain from Bush and Rumsfeld ?? Not Clinton?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:40pm.
Not Clinton and Gore?
Rendition - a dark stain from Bush and Rumsfeld ?? Ah, the ole claim:
Back to this in a moment; however FTR, according the CIA, the US did more of these Renditions prior to 9/11, than after 9/11. Funny how they never mention that word, "Clinton," unless it's about peace and prosperity, or Al Gore, unless it's about global warming or polar bears.
The national media loves Richard Clarke, but they only love to quote him when he's speaking of the Bush era, not the Clinton era.
This, from former White House intelligence advisor Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," 143-4.- my bold:
And shortly thereafter, Bill Clinton ordered the CIA to establish the US program of extraordinary rendition (PDD#39); the idea being that we could ship them off to you know who in Egypt, etc., so that they could be tortured to get information out of them.
I'm not surprised that following 9/11, the Bush administration would have fully utilized the new enhanced Rendition Program that President Clinton put in place in 1995, and utilized during his second term in office, perhaps more times than under Bush, after 9/11. That information was shared with Charlie Rose during an on-air 2007 interview w/ DCIA, Gen. Hayden:
As usual the national media looked the other way, and would never ask this question again.
The question stands, if it's a dark stain on American history that Bush and Rumsfeld (What? No Darth Vader today?) continued the "Clinton doctrine," following the horrific events of 9/11, then what shade of a stain is it that Clinton was conducting more of them before 9/11?
(;~/ gary
PS - anyone know Barry Petersen and Russ Mitchell's email address?
anyone know Barry Petersen and Russ Mitchell's email address?
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:50pm.
You think it will make any difference to them Gary?
Apparently
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 1:07pm.
it's still being done.
Aha!
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 1:37pm.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Shocking from the boy scout's administration. Just totally shockinig!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
bk . . and again, in the link . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:31pm.
. . you provided, it states:
Anyone remember any ongoing national discussion by the media and leftie groups wondering about whether, or how, the Bush administration would continue with the "extraordinary rendition" program conduced the the Clinton administration," following the events of 9/11?
Anyone remember the media dragging Clinton or Al Gore on national TV and ask them if they were proud that they had the rendition program up and running for Bush and Cheney, when we really needed it?
No -that's not a real question.
(;~> gary
bk -- PS
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 2:39pm.
One of the reasons - we presume - that the Obama Administration decided to keep the extraordinary rendition program available to them, was because they were planning on closing Gitmo. You see, with Gitmo closed, we're back to we were in the Clinton administration - no place to send them. Once Bush had Gitmo up and running (except for certain extremely high valued terrorists) the program was not needed so much any longer; hence, Hayden disclosure that we did more before 9/11, than after.
in the interview, Rose and Hayden, which I referenced above, Charlie Rose came to that understanding himself:
ROSE: There is also this. It would seem to me you would less and less need it as you go forward. And I still don't understand, and I hear you but I don't understand why it's necessary to take it to foreign countries where nobody can see, nobody knows anything, but, again, you say that's because you have nowhere else to bring them.
D/CIA [Hayden]: My choices are limited.
ROSE: Right.
D/CIA: All right?
ROSE: But you have nowhere else you can take them, other than to some foreign country where you turn it over to some foreign government.
D/CIA: Well, I'm open to ideas. I can keep them. That's detention. I can move them to a foreign government. That's rendition. We can move them to Guantanamo.
ROSE: I think most Americans would prefer detention or Guantanamo, I think, because you're putting people in the hands of other people and you're just going on just a promise --
Indeed Charlie, if only our national media could have stopped the censorship of the rest of the news and engaged the American public with intelligent informed news and debate.
(;~> gary
The whole rendition/GITMO issue
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 09/05/2011 - 12:54pm.
is dicey. For Bush, opening GITMO was really necessary, though he did hope to shut it down eventually. Obama made a campaign issue out of it but then got a dose of reality once in office. But, typical of wartime Democrats, the less they have to actually put their hands on the better for their re-election possibilities. So, he stopped sending people there.
Anyone who's been to GITMO and seen how the inmates are treated there knows that they are enjoying a much higher standard of living compared to what they'd likely be suffering on the battlefield somewhere. They're not free to come and go as they please, but I suspect under Taliban or Al Qaeda rule, freedom of movement would be pretty limited. Along with hygiene and health care. And by entering into the AQ lifestyle, they pretty much already said goodbye to family. So, I think it's fair to say that a GITMO inmate isn't really suffering too badly- comparatively.
But what Obama has chosen, rather than angering his base, is increased drone and SpecOps attacks with the ultimate outcome of death over incarceration. I'm not bleeding for these dead radicals so I can't argue too much with the policy, except that we're not getting human intelligence in most cases, and probably dragging out the war effort as a result. And those that are captured are going to Kuwait to be "interrogated" -never to be seen again. Funny how this approach is deemed more humane by the left and their human rights organizations.
It's also noteworthy that KSM and Abu Zubaydah are still alive and presumably resting comfortably in their cell in GITMO. How many high-level AQ operatives dealt with under the Obama administration are doing the same?
Leftista's Double Standard
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 12:47pm.
Apparently, Obama doesn't take prisoners. No one ever talks about it, anyway.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
The only thing Petersen and
Submitted by celator on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:06pm.
The only thing Petersen and Mitchell fret about is the fear their weekly pedicure appointment might be cancelled.
You mean George Tenant the
Submitted by buddyc on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 3:53pm.
You mean George Tenant the democrat who was appointed by Clinton and reported his activities to the Selected Committee on Intelligence and his CIA?
Is that the best CBS can do? W also got him to get rid of his wmd's and what would be happening now if he hadn't agreed to give those up???
W is their pin cushion.
But no disdain for the stain on
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:08pm.
Monica dress.
Just words on a paper
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 4:42pm.
Aren't the documents analyzed by Human Rights Watch jut words on a paper? Apparently, some words on a paper are worth more than others.
Isn't "dark stain" racist? I
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 5:05pm.
Isn't "dark stain" racist? I mean that's what I was told about the phrase "dark cloud". In fact, isn't any phrase containing the word dark verboten?
When is the Marxist "Media" going to
Submitted by Bodini on Sun, 09/04/2011 - 7:10pm.
discuss the dark stain of an American border agent's blood caused by BO's ATF establishing a gun-running operation for Mexican drug cartels! That's OK because its purpose was to turn opinion against our second amendment rights?