Brits Wouldn’t Hand Over Intelligence On Bin Laden In 1998, Guardian Blames Bush

Ken McCracken • July 29, 2007

Because apparently the Clinton administration wouldn’t promise to avoid torturing him.

Ministers insisted that British secret agents would only be allowed to pass intelligence to the CIA to help it capture Osama bin Laden if the agency promised he would not be tortured, it has emerged.
MI6 believed it was close to finding the al-Qaida leader in Afghanistan in 1998, and again the next year. The plan was for MI6 to hand the CIA vital information about Bin Laden. Ministers including Robin Cook, the then foreign secretary, gave their approval on condition that the CIA gave assurances he would be treated humanely. The plot is revealed in a 75-page report by parliament’s intelligence and security committee on rendition, the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured.

But you know what’s funny? The Guardian is apparently blaming Bush for this:

The report criticises the Bush administration’s approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents. It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances.

Why would this report be criticizing the Bush administration? Bush wasn’t President in 1998. You know who was President in 1998? Bill Clinton. And you know who invented the practice of extraordinary rendition? Why, that was Bill Clinton too.
Strangely, though, he isn’t mentioned in this article. I wonder why that is?

Tags: Media, Politics, The Loony Left, War On Terror

http://Array 2Hotel9

Bias? What bias? I don’t see no stinking bias!

Amazing. W enforces the policies set in place by BJ. And yet it is no BJ’s fault that the policy exists?
2Hotel9

Liderals/Democrat put that faulty ag-policy in place and have fought tooth&nail to keep it there. That makes it their fault. Cause and effect. You see how that works, right?

And for the record, I favor rendition, and severe interrogation techniques. And yes, I been put through the mill during SERE, so I know how hard interrogation can become on the subject. I came out of the second set with 3 broken fingers, fractured rib, fractured jaw and both eyes swollen nearly shut. That is what happens when you deviate from name/rank/number and actively resist.
http://ewebsmith.com/ ews48

So, it’s fair to blame a 50 year old agricultural policy on the liberals but not this on Bush?
http://www.dartemis.net/blog/ sayanything-42

lik,

No one expects you to understand what ews is saying, since ews obviously doesn’t either.
http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

ews48 – So, it’s fair to blame a 50 year old agricultural policy on the liberals but not this on Bush?

What are you talking about here?
Seixon

Rob, not to rain on the party, but what the Guardian wrote is false and not supported by the report they are quoting. I’m specifically referring to, “It shows that in 1998, the year Bin Laden was indicted in the US, Britain insisted that the policy of treating prisoners humanely should include him. But the CIA never gave the assurances.”

I read through the report, it never states this. The hapless journalists at the Guardian are apparently unable to comprehend English. Here’s what the report actually states:

40. In 1998, SIS believed that it might be able to obtain actionable intelligence that might enable the CIA to capture Osama Bin Laden. Given that this might have resulted in him being rendered from Afghanistan to the U.S., SIS sought Ministerial approval. This was given, provided that the CIA gave assurances regarding humane treatment. In the event, insufficient intelligence was obtained and therefore the operation could not proceed.

The operation didn’t proceed due to lack of intelligence, not due to lack of assurances from the CIA.

I think it’s fair to point out, though, that the rendition program started under Clinton, specifically in 1995 when they ramped up the program. However, the report seems to distinguish between different types of rendition, “Rendition to Justice, “Rendition to Detainment”, “Military Renditions”, and “Extraordinary Rendition”.

Clinton apparently did not, according to this report, make use of “Extraordinary Rendition” since this involves moving terrorist suspects outside US jurisdiction where there is a real threat of torture or inhumane treatment.
2Hotel9

“outside US jurisdiction where there is a real threat of torture or inhumane treatment.” Which is exactly why I support it. Sub-human terrorist scum want to kill women and children in the name of their God, Satan, we should be torturing them simply as punishment. Long, slow, agonizingly painful deaths are what they have earned. We should be giving it to them.
http://www.InformingChristians.com/ DebraJMSmith

From what I have learned, Clinton could have had Bin Laden at times on a silver platter, but turned the offers down. Here is a web-address to one story: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/839304/posts

I am not sure if it is okay to put links/web-addresses into a post because I am new here. So please if it isn’t okay, just let me know and I won’t do it again.

Debra…
http://ndgoon.blogspot.com/ goon

I could give a flying “F” if they shoot him in the knee or drowned him. This should stop them from extracting a terror suspect/thug. If they cancelled it because of lack of intel that is a totally different deal.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Brits Wouldn’t Hand Over Intelligence On Bin Laden In 1998, Guardian Blames Bush

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments