Posted on 11/13/2006 7:35:12 PM PST by bobsunshine
Carl Levin, the incoming chairman of the Senate armed services committee, on Monday pledged to scrutinise the Central Intelligence Agency renditions programme.
The Bush administration this year revealed that the US had transferred 14 high-value al-Qaeda suspects from secret CIA prisons to Guantánamo Bay. But officials have been unwilling to discuss the fate of dozens of other detainees who were rounded up around the world for interrogation.
While Congress has enacted legislation aimed at preventing abuses of detainees, there has been relatively little public scrutiny of the renditions system itself.
Asked whether he would investigate the renditions programme, including the secret prisons and missing detainees, Mr Levin replied: "Yes. Yes, yes and yes."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
its going to be a long 2 years.
One response for Levin:
"I'm sorry senator, I can't recall."
you can say that again...
Maybe they should start with BillClinton transfering prisoners?? Just a thought.
I don't think so.
There was no corruption or anything illegal between the inaugurations of clinton and W.
All recent corruption began Jan 21 2001 at 12:01 PM
*** But officials have been unwilling to discuss the fate of dozens of other detainees who were rounded up around the world for interrogation. ***
Hopefully they were drained of anything interesting and take care of with prejudice.
I heard that.
Please, please, Senator Levin, convince the American people that you care more about terrorists than you do about the safety of the people you represent.
Although Levin is from Michigan, he is THEIR (Muslims) senator, not mine. He doesn't speak for me.
CONCERN OVER RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
(Senate - October 09, 1998)
HON. CARL LEVIN in the Senate
October 9, 1998
Mr. LEVIN: Mr. President, today, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, Hutchison and twenty-three other Senators, I am sending a letter to the President to express our concern over Iraq's actions and urging the President `after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.'
At the outset, I believe it would be useful to review the events that led up to the requirement for the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. At the time that Iraq unlawfully invaded and occupied its neighbor Kuwait, the UN Security Council imposed economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq. ---snip---
With respect to Iraq's history, the Security Council noted Iraq's threat during the Gulf War to use chemical weapons in violation of its treaty obligations, Iraq's prior use of chemical weapons, Iraq's use of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks, and reports that Iraq attempted to acquire materials for a nuclear weapons program contrary to its treaty obligations.
After reviewing Iraq's history, the Security Council decided that `Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision' of its weapons of mass destruction programs and all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers and conditioned the lifting of the economic and weapons sanctions on Iraq's meeting its obligations, including those relating to its weapons of mass destruction programs.
--snip--
Thus, Iraq unconditionally accepted the UN Security Council's demands and thereby achieved a formal cease-fire and the withdrawal of coalition forces from its territory.
--snip--
Suffice it to say that on August 5, 1998, Iraq declared that it was suspending all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activities.
In response, on September 9, 1998, a unanimous UN Security Council condemned Iraq's action and suspended its sanctions' reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise their full range of activities. Within the last week, Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister refused to rescind Iraq's decision. Throughout this process and despite the unanimity in the UN Security Council, Iraq has depicted the United States and Britain as preventing UNSCOM and the IAEA from certifying Iraqi compliance with its obligations. --snip--
Mr. President, by invading Kuwait, Iraq threatened international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. By its failure to comply with the conditions it accepted as the international community's requirements for a cease-fire, Iraq continues to threaten international peace and security. By its refusal to abandon its quest for weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, Iraq is directly defying and challenging the international community and directly violating the terms of the cease fire between itself and the United States-led coalition.
Mr. President, it is vitally important for the international community to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM and the IAEA to carry out their missions. To date, the response has been to suspend sanctions' reviews and to seek to reverse Iraq's decision through diplomacy.
Mr. President, as UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted when he successfully negotiated the memorandum of agreement with Saddam Hussein in February, `You can do a lot with diplomacy, but of course you can do a lot more with diplomacy backed up by fairness and force.' It is my sincere hope that Saddam Hussein, when faced with the credible threat of the use of force, will comply with the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. But, I believe that we must carefully consider other actions, including, if necessary, the use of force to destroy suspect sites if compliance is not achieved.
Mr. President, the Iraqi people are suffering because of Saddam Hussein's noncompliance. The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people. It is most unfortunate that they have been subjected to economic sanctions for more than seven years. If Saddam Hussein had cooperated with UNSCOM and the IAEA from the start and had met the other requirements of the UN Security Council resolutions, including the accounting for more than 600 Kuwaitis and third-country nationals who disappeared at the hands of Iraqi authorities during the occupation of Kuwait, those sanctions could have been lifted a number of years ago. I support the UN's oil-for-food program and regret that Saddam Hussein took more than five years to accept it. In the final analysis, as the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council stated at the time of the February crisis: `responsibility for the result of this crisis falls on the Iraqi regime itself.'
I ask that the letter to the President be printed in the Record.
People Booger Eating Morons who espouse this sort of crap should be forced to take in at least one of those terrorists, to have as a houseguest!
Carl Levin == Enemy of America.
Mark
I was just thinking about that today. Hmmm, he's from Michigan, with the largest population of Muslims in the country. How much clout do they have with him? And where is his allegiance - to Americans or his Muslim constituents, who may have bought him. Just wondering...
If they start a bunch of investigations, the "long two years" will vanish like the morning dew if we get attacked AFTER the investigations start.
Pretending that we're not in a World War only flies as long as we're not attacked...
Personally, I think there would be a real good case for sabotage charges in the case where the Dhimmis can't resist their vengeance fetish.
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Isn't it just insane that the rats are saying that now is the time for civility and bipartisanship?
After all these years of the worst incivility and rabid partinsanship while we're at war and when they were in the minority.
Now that they've gained some power with no plan other than destruction they can't take what they've been giving.
Bunch of spoiled children that need to be spanked.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.