NY Times advanced GOP attack on Clinton-era renditions
In a May 8 New York Times article on the continued fall-out surrounding the Bush administration’s controversial interrogation and detention policies, reporters Scott Shane and Carl Hulse wrote that “Republicans are now mounting an aggressive pushback on several fronts,” including “suggesting that the counterterrorism policies of President Bill Clinton violated human rights.” Shane and Hulse then reported: “At a hearing on Thursday, Republican senators pressed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. about the practice in the Clinton administration of rendition, in which terrorism suspects captured abroad were delivered to prisons in other countries, including some that routinely use torture.” However, they did not note that Holder specifically rebutted those charges during the May 7 hearing, stating: “From my memory of my time in the Clinton administration, I don’t believe that we did that, that we had renditions where people were taken to places where we had any reasonable belief they were going to be tortured.” Holder’s statement corroborated Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta’s account of the Clinton administration’s rendition policy.
From the May 7 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing (emphasis added):
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): My last question is once we begin this process the question is where is the line drawn?
According to former intelligence officials, renditions — and by renditions we mean moving captured people from our country to another country where they might be interrogated or even worse — those renditions were used by the Clinton administration beginning in the mid 1990s to investigate and disrupt Al Qaeda. That’s the testimony before Congress. And Michael Shawyer, he said that it began in late summer of ’95, I authorized it, I ran it, I managed it against Al Qaeda leaders.
The Washington Post says that the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet, said there were about 70 renditions carried out before September 11, 2001, most of them during the Clinton years.
Mr. Attorney General, you were the deputy attorney general from 1997 to 2001. Did you know about these renditions? Did you or anyone else at the Department of Justice approve them? What precautions were taken to ensure these renditions and any interrogations of such detainees, on, by, or behalf of the United States government complied with the law?
ATTY. GEN. HOLDER: I think the concern that we have with renditions is renditions to countries that would not treat suspects with — treat them in a way that’s consistent with the laws via treaties that we have signed. If a person’s going to be — if there’s a rendition taking a person to a place where the possibility is that person might be tortured, that’s the kind of rendition I think that is inappropriate.
From my memory of my time in the Clinton administration, I don’t believe that we did that, that we had renditions where people were taken to places where we had any reasonable belief they were going to be tortured. And that would be the concern that I would have.
I wouldn’t want to restrict the ability of our government to use all the techniques that we can to keep the American people safe. But in using those tools we have to do so in a way that’s consistent with our treaty obligations and our values as a nation.
SEN. ALEXANDER: But I think you can see the line of my inquire, which is if we’re going to ask lawyers who were asked to give legal opinions, we’re going to investigate them, jeopardize their careers, second guess them, look back, then where does that stop? I mean, do we not also have to look at the people who asked for those techniques, at people who approved those techniques, at members of Congress who knew about and encouraged the techniques perhaps?
Or, in your case, in the Clinton administration we don’t know what the interrogations were then. Perhaps you do, and the question would be whether you approved them.
I prefer President Obama’s approach. I think it’s time to look forward and I hope he sticks to that point of view.
The Times quoted a portion of this exchange in its May 8 article — when Alexander asked, “If we’re going to ask lawyers who were asked to give legal opinions, we’re going to investigate them, jeopardize their careers, second guess them, look back, then where does that stop?” — but did not note that Holder directly responded to questions about renditions during the Clinton administration.
As Media Matters for America noted, in a February 6 article on Panetta’s confirmation hearing to become CIA director, The Washington Post similarly reported that Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) “noted that the Clinton administration had ordered dozens of renditions,” but did not mention that Panetta responded by distinguishing between Clinton-era and Bush-era renditions. Panetta stated that “extraordinary renditions” under the Bush administration, “where I think … we took a prisoner and sent him to another country for questioning and often times that questioning took place under circumstances that did not meet our test for human values,” are different than renditions in which individuals were returned “to countries of jurisdiction” or “rendered back to this country for purposes of trial.” Panetta called the latter types of rendition “an important tool.”
From the May 8 New York Times article, “List Says Top Democrats Were Briefed on Interrogations”:
Republicans are now mounting an aggressive pushback on several fronts: highlighting evidence that at least some Democrats in Congress failed to speak out against the harsh methods; accusing the Obama administration of endangering Americans by emptying Guantánamo; and suggesting that the counterterrorism policies of President Bill Clinton violated human rights.
At a hearing on Thursday, Republican senators pressed Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. about the practice in the Clinton administration of rendition, in which terrorism suspects captured abroad were delivered to prisons in other countries, including some that routinely use torture.
“If we’re going to ask lawyers who were asked to give legal opinions, we’re going to investigate them, jeopardize their careers, second guess them, look back, then where does that stop?” Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, asked Mr. Holder. He suggested that if Bush administration lawyers were to be investigated, perhaps those from the Clinton administration should get similar treatment.
This week, the government 
