In 1995, in the wake of the 1993 car-bomb attack on the World Trade Centre in New York, [Michael] Scheuer was the main CIA officer charged with hunting down Islamic terrorists believed to be posing a threat to the US. He was the “go-to guy” for all things al-Qaeda.
President Clinton’s National Security Council had asked the CIA to break up al-Qaeda around the world and to arrest and imprison key operatives. “The Agency is a tool of the President so of course we said “yes”,” Scheuer explains at his home near the CIA’s HQ in Langley, Virginia. “We asked how we were to do it and where we were to take them, and they said “it’s up to you”.”
The CIA has no prisons and no powers of arrest, so Scheuer was presented with something of a problem. The programme of renditions he developed was very different to the system which now operates.
Today, anyone suspected of links to terrorism can be snatched anywhere in the world, put on a secret CIA jet and taken to a country, such as Egypt, for “out-sourced” torture.
When Scheuer developed his programme he stipulated strictly that only suspects who had been tried in absentia for terrorist offences or had an outstanding arrest warrant were to be targeted. “They had to be part of some legal process,” Scheuer says. “We were focusing on a very narrow segment of al-Qaeda. It was very delicate and complicated.”
The target also had to be perceived as a direct threat to the US by the CIA and the department of justice and the country in which the person was to be seized had to support the action and carry out the arrest. Today there only has to be the suggestion they are involved in terrorism – no convictions or warrants are needed, nor is the permission of another country.
“The primary intention was to get the guy off the streets so he couldn’t carry out any more atrocities against US citizens,” he says.
“Our second goal was to seize documents along with the suspect and exploit them for intelligence. Finally, we never expected to get anything from interrogations. Al-Qaeda are trained to fight the jihad from their jail cells , they are masters of counter-interrogation. They’ll give you old information or false information. The CIA never felt it would help to torture these people. ”
“If we had brought them to the US, the rendition programme would be being celebrated around the world today. We would have abided by the Geneva Conventions. It would have gone down in CIA lore as a tremendous operation if it was handled in a way commensurate with US law.
“The fact that it isn’t, is down to the policymakers. It’s better to use a system that’s in place – of PoWs and the Geneva Conventions – than invent a new one ad-hoc which people don’t agree with. We shot ourselves in both feet. We did it in such a stupid way.
“Everyone from the President down had the option to make them PoWs, but they were arrogant. We believe al-Qaeda can get legitimacy from what we say and do, so there was a constant fear of giving them legitimacy by calling them PoWs.”
Scheuer understands the CIA will eventually be the fall guys for the policy. “…If the lawyers said it was OK, it was OK.”
Both the Clinton and Bush White House OK’s the policy. The Clinton years averaged about a dozen snatches a year. Bush has OK’d about 40 or 50 per year.
This is an interesting topic. Being US Air Force stationed at Aviano, Italy, I have researched this topic before. I understand the promise and there even seems to have been a “plane” spotting here at Aviano Air Base. Once does have to wonder if the public should believe the story of one man. See: Bush’s claim that Iraq has WMD’s.
John
I’m now waiting for Paul Theo-whatever’s next post about Bush bashing or defense of the indefensible…It’ll be here soon.
Bush Bozos always defend their man to the end, just like good little Fox News pets. Some Bush apologist’ll probably attack the above man, even though this man has made a true sacrifice to his country.
To satguy, all these fake patriots that would never enlist for what they say they believe in – 1 of them will attack you somewhere, someday, somehow.
From me to you: Be safe & good luck to you & all your family. Much respect is due for what you do. Many may not support Bush, but support the military by wanting our servicemen only put in harms way when it is justified. Be careful not to confuse them with those who would use you as cannon fodder to satisfy other motives.
Thank you. We salute you sir.
>> “If we had brought them to the US, the rendition programme would be being celebrated around the world today.
What wishful thinking! By unilaterally “disappearing” people, the CIA is flagrantly breaking local laws and snubbing their nose at the national sovereignty of other countries. It doesn’t matter where they disappear them to.
Italy has issued arrest warrants for 13 CIA officers because of this goofball kidnapping policy.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/24/world/main703982.shtml
When did American values go off the rails? I generally liked Clinton but I can not support this policy. (I doubt it started with him as the article insinuates.)
Whatever plan he came up with, by definition it’s very limited. The World Trade Center gets bombed, then some embassies, then a Navy ship, and no counterattacks. If theey had invaded Afghanistan earlier, or perhaps gotten Bin Laden in Sudan(which the Sudanese offered), then the position would have been much stronger.
The Geneva Conventions/POW is separate from torture. Under the Geneva Conventions, you have to let them go eventually, and are not allowed to ask any questions.
Obviousman
My sentiments exactly.
The Bush apologists wonder why some people are chanting “impeach Bush”. It is the arrogance typified in this story that show why. The American military had bin Laden cornered, yet they backed off and allowed him to escape. Instead of getting the person most highly responsible for 9/11, he told us that Saddam was a terrorist.
Disagreement for American troops being in Iraq should not be confused with not supporting American troops. That idea came from those who have hijacked the term patriotism to cover their illegal and unconstitutional behavior.
Satguy,
I wish you the best. Thank you to you and all your brothers for being there.
I call total and utter bullshit!
Bin Laden and thousands of muhajeddins were present in Bosnia on Clinton’s watch and then later on again in the Kosovo farce which actually pales compared to Bushies WMD bull.
Just look at the last 3 leaders of Al Quaeda in S.Arabia, all Bosnia veterans including the last one who returned home after a decade with a Bosnian passport and wife.
While the CIA in 1998 called the Kosovo terrorists the biggest and best armed terrorist group in the world, the US secretaries where having cafe au lait in France with wanted criminals from INTERPOLs top 10 list.
If anything, terrorism flourished under US leadership in the 90’s.
Follow the links from 9-11 and Madrid and they;ll take you to the Bosnian collection. Same for the dozen we took from there and stuck at Gitmo.
This collective amnesia is not surprising, we’ve had the same media co-option way before embedded reporters were sent to Iraq.
I interviews french TV producer Jacques Merlino a dozen years ago after his book came out in which James Harff from PR liars Rudder and Finn openly explained how you manipulate news with the help of his trusty Rolodex. You have either to admire his balls or realize taht the system is such that you can admit how you manipulate the media in print and nothing will happen.
The Clinton white house used the muhajeddins presence in the balkans to their end just like french president Edouard Balladur did in that decade. Balladur openly admitted to le Nouvel Observateur almost 10 years ago that the french knew taht the famous marketplace massacres where created by the muslim forces on the even of important UN votes but that they served the french side.
What exactly do you think that thousands of muhajeddins did in the Balkans? Go skiing?
Read Lord Owen’s book, or Generals Lewis Mackenzie, Michael Rose, Morillion and Nambiar and all mention their use.
Esprit de Corps magazine editor Scott Taylor event devoted a big aspect of any lectures he used to give about the topic and Im sure he would laugh at the suggestion that the Clinton years were hard on Bin Laden.
It’s truly amazing that some people will attack Bush justifiably for his record and his lies but give the democrats carte blanche.
Of course, anyone who had listened to a democrat promote their man in 2004 as the anti-Bush have already known that they had too much kool-aid.
It seems almost like a Pavlovian reflex that what isnt Bush must be good. Oh yeah, what was Kerry doing in the 90’s when all of europe was reporting of muhajeddins everywhere in the Balkans?
Yea,…he didnt know either….;-0
zeke
Of Course Sadam did not even have to transport his people for “in-terror-gation”.
AB CD — I have to wonder about the foundation for your misunderstandings of what happened when and where. You apparently think the Sudanese were actually ready and willing to turn over OBL to the US — when he was based there. Not a chance!
I knew of Bin Laden since the mid-80’s and especially from Sudanese. The government took his money and left him free to do whatever he wished.
Zeke
Get a grip buddy. I truly feel your pain. Almost everyone has suffered to some degree with Bush as President, but don’t let that worry you.
Major General Lewis MacKenzie was the UN commander in Bosnia. His recollections were that the UN should have intervened sooner and more forcibly. He faulted both the Croats and Serbs for atrocities against the Muslims Both groups were trying to grab land from Bosnia for their own countries; Croatia and Yugoslavia. His complaint was that the UN could only observe and not prevent the horrors being committed. I haven’t read or are unfamiliar with the other Generals you cite.
What mujahadeens were in Bosnia and who did they control? Other Muslim nations sympathized with Bosnia, but sent no aid. It was viewed as a European problem, in the Muslim world, for the west to solve.
Kosovo also did not have mujahadeens operating. There were Kosovo resistance fighters, but they were few and poorly armed. It was NATO this time that intervened because of the atrocities committed by Serbs (and Croats) in nearby Bosnia and the threatened genocide of Michslosovic’s Serbs from Yugoslavia. The Kosovo resistance were mostly disarmed by the NATO forces.
As for terrorism during the 1990s, there were far fewer then today. Outside of some remarkable incidents, such as Kenya, they were less destructive as well. It was only after Israel continued to violate the cease fire agreement with the Palestinians that resistance terrorism grew in scope.
As for the fostering of “terrorism”. It was Dick Cheney who sold Iraq the chemicals with which Saddam used to gas the Iranians and later his own people. It was also the CIA during Regan’s Administration that supplied bin Laden with weapons in Afghanistan.
In summation, your diatribe stretches the facts or misappropriates them to other events. Clinton tried to stay inside the bounds of international law, not ignore it as Bush has. The whole thrust of this story is about how the Clinton policy was to respect the law.