Jan 13 2009
As Israel Fights Terrorists, Obama Plans To Free Terrorists
Obama has so far been a major disappointment to the radical left. He has selected a lot of centrist democrats, has left the major players in place at the Pentagon and is dumping his radical liberal policies in the face of a serious economic crisis (even to the point of proposing massive tax cuts). Very few radical liberals are in positions of power. And those that have fancy new titles (like the Global Warming Czar – or Queen of hot air) will probably turn out to be figure heads spouting rhetoric with no progress to be seen.
So what does Obama do to throw the far left a bone? He takes the dumb and risky step of closing GITMO:
President-elect Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order on his first full day in office directing the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, people briefed by Obama transition officials said Monday.
So his first official, high profile act of office will be to free the killers there? We know there will be an uptick in terrorist attacks, they have to send Obama a message (they would do it to whomever was coming in as President). I can tell by the unprecedented security and closing of bridges across the Potomac this inauguration is looking like a celebration under siege. DC is turning into the Green Zone in Baghdad – not a good sign. And certainly not a sign of power and strength.
So what does closing GITMO mean? Where will these killers go?
One transition official said the new administration expected that it would take several months to transfer some of the remaining 248 prisoners to other countries, decide how to try suspects and deal with the many other legal challenges posed by closing the camp.
…
“I thought he was trying to manage expectations of how quickly those detainees who remain can be sorted into two categories: those who will be released and those who will be prosecuted,” Ms. Mendelson said.
Here’s the legal rub. Most of these people were arrested on the field of battle. Others were literally kidnapped at gun point where evidence was collected. And of course some where water-boarded (which is done to our fighting forces as part of their training against rough interrogation techniques). There was no torture in the literal sense, but the media blitz has provided a lot of defense ammunition that will drag trials on forever.
As I noted in my Democrat Contract With al Qaeda back in February 2006, the left is still making good on its promises to help our enemies:
SECOND, We will enact legislation to release all Al Qaeda members now held in custody in the GITMO Gulag, while providing legal counsel to all who have been unfairly detained during this unfortunate international misunderstanding between Al Qaeda and America. We will ensure all detainees have options for bail and parole so they can continue with their life’s efforts while the legal issues surrounding their detention are worked out. Every ex-detainee will be provided the services of an ACLU lawyer.
And who can forget how the other Senator from Illinois – Dick Durbin – compared our US forces detaining these killers to Nazis and other mass murders? Of the original nine promises to al Qaeda I predicted the Dems would enact only a few are still left undone, and efforts have been made across all of them. It is a sad state to watch supposed leaders kow tow to those who killed so many of us on 9-11. But that is the way of the liberal – appeasement at any cost.
This is really a dumb move by a neophyte politician trying to gain acceptance in all corners – no matter how incoherent the actions are. Why does the plight of 248 Jihadist killers warrant the attention of the President, superseding the 100’s of thousands now in harms way on the battle field? Why do these thugs deserve to be the focus of the first act of our new President while many Americans are struggling to survive economically? Why is this more important than any other issue?
Obama is going to be the classic liberal disaster. If his first message is to the detainees in GITMO he has already started off way down the wrong path.
65 Responses to “As Israel Fights Terrorists, Obama Plans To Free Terrorists”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I tell people that the fact that I did not vote for Obama, all I have to do is sit back, watch, chuckle, and listen to them whine, groan, and moan. It is as the only way for them to learn the real purpose of our federal government, which is to protect our country so that we can enjoy our freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms, then we need one or two attacks.
What a shame if that is the only way to teach them.
What is worse is that we are going to be poorer in four years than we are today.
Did Obama really declare that we are at the end of a financial crisis? Is that close to the “Mission Accomplishment” banner on USS Alabama?
The financial crisis is not over and won’t be over for a while. The signs may be there that things are turning around but inflation will slow it down.
One thing I notice is that there are now more quiet, unhappy and worried Americans. The people that I work with are unhappy with the benefit reductions. The latest news of layoffs is Planned Parenthood and they are blaming this on Madoff. I learned last night that every year my contract will lay people off – the hopes are that other contracts will pick us up are still high unless Obama changes plans. Obama wants to gut the defense, intelligence, and military and we are part of this group.
Anyone see the latest on pension plans. It’s getting close to a crisis. Wall Street ain’t the last crisis.
In spite of it all, we need to think positive….
“And of course some where water-boarded (which is done to our fighting forces as part of their training against rough interrogation techniques). There was no torture in the literal sense, but the media blitz has provided a lot of defense ammunition that will drag trials on forever.”
And this, of course, ignores the fact that, when waterboarding was done to our troops by the Japanese in WW II, we convicted them of war crimes.
So – when it’s done to us, waterboarding is torture. When we do it to somebody else, it’s not “torture in the literal sense”.
And why is that, AJ?
GITMO should remain in operation for a number of important reasons the most important of which is to send the message that the US has a special place for those who would attack us—exactly the opposite message that those who worry about world opinion espouse. The fact that it raises such consternation among the weak willed shows its effectiveness as a place of perceived punishment. Fight terror with terror. With friends like the UN who needs enemies!!!
Secondly, remind the fat commie in Venezuela that we have a room with a view for him once we get tired of his bloviating.
Thirdly, it is the only good thing going on in Cuba.
Lastly, what is the endgame—they criticized the POTUS for not being omniprescient on the future of Iraq, yet offer no clue as to what to do with these wayward jihadists—-”Oh just let them go; the world will then love us and no one will ever atttack us again—Kumbaya”.
BHO should invest in developing the beachfront around GITMO and turn it into a tourist destination for the US military (free R&R choice) and civilians (who can go see the animals in their cages as part of some Eco-terrorism tour). There, I just stimulated the economy–I can be president too!!!
Not to worry. When the dirty bomb goes off in NY the MSM will go into massive 24/7 overdrive to convince the public that it was a result of Bush’s mistreatment of these poor, unfortunate, innocent pratitioners of the religion of peace. Obama? Obama? Who’s he?
With this announcement, we are now officially less safe from attack. The Arab mind will see this as a sign of weakness, and an invitation to strike.
Liberals have completely misconstrued why we have not been attacked on our soil since 9-11. It has nothing to do with interdiction of attacks, nothing to do with surveillance, nothing to do with our enemy’s CAPABILITIES. The jihad has retained the capability to do us arm for the entire time, but they were afraid of what else the cowboy might have in store for them.
We have not been attacked because we exacted the consequences necessary to cower the enemy, even though they ceaselessly bloviate. Our willingness to stand and shed blood in Iraq is what made us safe from attack, and now with this display of weakness we once again become a target.
Though we have attempted to frame our offensive actions as defensive and altruistic, the Islamists see our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan as punitive and retaliatory. They will see our closing of Guantanamo as the beginning of capitulation, in my opinion.
I find it amusing, but in a very sad way, that you all think you just know for sure that treating detainees this way has “kept us safe”, while people that actually deal with terrorists on a regular basis say the exact opposite.
Most people who voted for Obama are too young to remember Jimmy Carter.
Guy…..the reason that people think that “waterboarding” kept us safer is because after months of interrogation no information was gleaned. So the President authorized “waterboarding” for 3 terrorists. Those terrorists were involved deep in operation and planning of the al Queda organization, something we knew little about. We are told that the information that we got helped us prevent other attacks, gave us plans, names and operations. That information stopped other attacks, we a safer.
Where will they put these detainees. Brother I don’t know. Their countries won’t take them back, the europeans will not have them. We are simply, stuck with them. We have to put them in the court system or turn them loose here. Neither is a good choice. I think, in the future, the best thing to do will be to shoot them on the battle field (thats what they do to us given the opportunity) so let us get on a level playing field. I think Obama’s administration is in for a shock. He is about to find out that governing in far more difficult than campaigning with a friendly media.
Cannot wait! Once Obama understand the realities, then we can move forward…no more arguments against the left-wings. Obama can issue this EO…he has NO plans on what to do with the detainees…so what is he going to do?
The Left will say that the terrorists have gotten stronger so the Bush policies have not worked.
Just wait.
I cannot wait! YAY!!
Here is the thing that has been lost in people’s minds during the past 8 years:
9/11 was al Qaeda’s *second* attempt to bomb the World Trade Center. The second attempt was hatched, planned for, and trained for during the Clinton administration. Bin Laden had no more knowledge of who would win the 2000 elections than the rest of us did when that plan was being executed, and frankly he didn’t care. 9/11 happened due to the Democrats utterly failing to do anything substantial to combat global terrorism. We even allowed an opportunity to snag Bin Laden during the Clinton administration.
9/11 happened less than eight months after Bush took office. There has not been a single successful terrorist attack in the US since and we know several have been thwarted and there are probably more we don’t know of. Obama wants to return to the same policies that caused 9/11 in the first place. Bin Laden must be overjoyed.
I believe Obama will not make the world safer. I believe Obama is going to get a lot of people killed. My son will be old enough for military service in 10 years and I don’t want him having to clean up Obama’s mess as we are still cleaning up Carter’s mess. al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hezbollah and by extension Hamas are creations of Carter’s policies of “when the going gets tough, the tough get going … in the opposite direction”.
Great post, Cross.
One thing I have read about Hitler and WWII was his notion that England was WEAK because they had done away with the draft. Perception became reality.
Weakness shown is weakness confirmed, imho. Telling THIS enemy that we “won’t hurt them” is RIDICULOUS. What will they fear about us? Are you telling me that the United States of America should adapt the tactics of abused women: “If I just act nice and sweet, he won’t hurt me”?????? We all know the outcome of that mindset-MORE ABUSE/terror.
And the Geneva Convention was for enemies in STATE designated UNIFORMS, not gangs of thug terrorists who 1) you cannot negotiate ANY TERMS of warfare (they could care less) 2) belong to no one designated state/country.
COMMON SENSE dictates the policies that George W. Bush used. And here is a fact:
There were FOUR TERRORIST ATTACKS AFTER the First WTC attack during the clinton years. Z.E.R.O. during the Bush years after 9/11. Whatever was being done to protect us during the 90’s DID.NOT.WORK. FACT. And that goes for all presidents before him as well.
George is the first president to take it to the terrorists…and if some in the world don’t like that, then it’s an indictment on them. They must have financial/personal relations or financial/personal gain from keeping the terrorists thriving. Con jobs like the French/Germans and the Oil for Food program.
Guy?
And this, of course, ignores the fact that, when waterboarding was done to our troops by the Japanese in WW II, we convicted them of war crimes
Of course there is no evidence that any American was ever waterboarded by the Japanese in WWII.
Why do you libs have to make things up to try to prove a point?
All claims relating to ‘water’ and ‘torture’ were related to water torture, not waterboarding which are two entirely unrelated techniques.
Maybe you ought to check some of your facts before spouting such drivel.
Guy,
Three actual terrorists waterboarded in seven years has you more exercised than the thousands of deaths and maimings by the terrorists.
The man you elected is now responsible for keeping us safe. That’s a tall order. And those who voted for him must carry the same burden in their conscience.
Redteam,
Isn’t sadly funny how liberals believe the dumbest lies fed to them but deny reality staring them in the face?
Remember what the Dean told Flounder in Animal House?
“Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son”
Guy has the last one pretty well nailed.
First off, let me get this straight: somebody up thread trots out the “9/11 was Clinton’s fault” line, and it’s liberals who will “believe the dumbest lies fed to them but deny reality staring them in the face”? Okay – sure. So, let’s all agree that if we’re attacked between 1/20/2009 and 9/11/2009, then it’s Bush’s fault.
Red Team:
“Of course there is no evidence that any American was ever waterboarded by the Japanese in WWII.”
Except for this.
Or here, where John McCain, a man who I hear knows something about torture, completely contradicts you. (Unless, of course, McCain is now one of these “liberals” too.)
Or heck, any of the 45,000+ links you can find here
Tell me – does anyone here ever get tired of being wrong?
Guy,
Re Clinton culpability: look up the “Gorelick Wall.”
Guy:
That is such a load of crap. In WW2, the US fire bombed Tokyo and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We locked up the Japanese Americans in camps just for being Japanese and it was not unheard of on the battle field for soldiers to shoot unarmed enemy soldiers. It was not a regular practice, but it happened. If the folks responsible for running the military in WW2, like say Patton were around today I can assure you that waterboarding would not be the worse thing these guys would be facing.
And then of course we get all this self righteous posturing over the US waterboarding 3 terrorists {five years ago} responsible for murdering God only knows how many people. And for what silly reason did the horrid Americans do this? Why to save lives, those bad bad people. We should have just let those folks die. Or promise the terrorists virgins, maybe then they would have cooperated.
Get over yourself.
So back the subject that Guy so deftly ignores…we have Obama promising to close Gitmo. Eventually. He is going to try these people {good luck with that} if the Supreme Court says he can. If he can’t, I guess it is anybody’s guess what he will do. Australia has already said they will not take their people back, along with a lot of other countries. So, if Obama finds out he can not move them anywhere, can not easily try them, can not just turn them loose and can not send them home. I guess that just leaves sending them to the fairy land so many of his cult followers inhabit. It is after all, an entirely different realm.
And Guy, I don’t think 9/11 was the fault of anyone but the terrorists, but the Clinton administration had more than a dozen opportunities to kill Osama before AlQaida launched that attack, and he did not do it. Imagine how different things would be today if Clinton had killed Osama and Zawhiri a decade ago.
Guy’s lecture on moral relativism reminded me of a discussion I had with an old soldier who had spent 3+ years in a Japanese POW camp. He was one of the men who survived the death march in the Philippines. Let me tell you this Guy, Gitmo is no Japanese POW camp. One of the reasons that the Japanese were tried for war crimes, was that the brutal treatment our men received at their hands was not some isolated case of waterboarding of three soldiers..it was years of beatings, torture, starvation, isolation, forced labor, which usually ended in violent death. There is no comparison between the Imperial Japanese and Gitmo. If you think there is you need to brush up on some history.
History like the rape of Nanking, or the use of biological weapons on Chinese peasants… Or the slaughter of Australian nurses and the imprisonment and torture of British civilians many of which were women and children.
In the years immediately following 9/11, Congress sanctioned the use of aggressive techniques. They did not change their minds on that until it was politically advantageous to do so.
Terrye:
Now, why do I find that hard to believe? Can you please name source for these “dozen opportunities”?
And wow – if Clinton had a dozen chances to kill Bin Laden (but chose not to), then he was WAY better at this than Bush, who apparently has not had even a single opportunity.
I mean, they both had 8 years: Clinton finds him a dozen times, and Bush can’t find him even once? Sounds to me like Bush is doing it wrong.
Tell ya what, Terrye – you go back and find the spot where I said that Gitmo and Japanese WWII camps were the same, and I’ll concede your point.
This should not be difficult to understand: Torture. Is. Wrong. And here’s the key point – it does not matter who is being tortured. It’s wrong if it’s done to an American GI, it’s wrong if it’s done to someone abducted by the KGB, and yes – it’s even wrong when it’s done to a terrorist.
We’re supposed to be above that kind of thing. We’re supposed to be the good guys. Somewhere, you all forgot that.
Now, please — all of you feel free to lie about what I just wrote, and insinuate that “not believing in torturing terrorists” is exactly the same as “loving the terrorists”. Go on, I know you’re all dying to do it – it’s all you’ve got anyway.
Guy:
Did I say torture was right? You made an issue of talking about how Japanese were tried for war crimes for doing what we bad Americans were doing, if that is not moral relativism..what is
The point is that if all the Japanese had done was waterboard 3 soldiers I doubt very much if there would have been war crime tribunals. My other point was that the techniques used on these particular men, years ago…saved lives. So what would you prefer? It is easy to sanctimoniously and piously announce that you would never ever do something…but what if the lives of thousands were in the balance? That was the situation they were looking when they used that technique on 3 people, it was not routine, nor was it done lightly nor has it been done in years. And I doubt if it will ever be done again.
Actually Guy, it was not a dozen, it has a half a dozen opportunities and google it yourself. It is common knowledge. My typing may suck but it is no secret that Clinton had several opportunities to take out Osama and did not. I would imagine that if he had known what was going to happen, he would have. I think that he thought the attacks would mostly be on foreign soil and not huge…and there for not worth the trouble.
Here is a link
Here is another link to you tube, where Bill talks about not taking Bin Laden when he had the chance.
Oh, I almost missed my favorite part of AJ’s post:
“This is really a dumb move by a neophyte politician trying to gain acceptance in all corners – no matter how incoherent the actions are.”
Yes, indeed – only a neophyte politician would ever propose closing GITMO.
The fact that John McCain, Robert Gates, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell have all said it should be closed just proves that, I guess.
AJ,
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Obama will be the first president to release prisoners from Gitmo. Do you not realize that Bush has released without charge approximately 65% of the prisoners detained at Gitmo after 9/11 ?
Do you not realize that Bush has cleared the release of 20% of the remaining 250 prisoners, with the only hold up being that we cannot find countries to take them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
So what do you think happened? Did Bush willingly release over 500 terrorist and clear the release of 50 more thereby jeopardizing our countries safety? Or did he realize that maybe they weren’t terrorist or significant enough players to warrant their indefinite detention? I’m guessing the later.
Bush has already proven that the sky will not fall if prisoners are released from Gitmo since he released or cleared the release of the vast majority of them. So all of you Chicken Littles can take a deep breath.
Terrye,
I think I finally understand your logic about Clinton’s responsibility for 9/11.
Clinton had opportunities to take out Bin Laden and therefore 9/11 was his fault.
Which means – Bush had 8 years to take out Bin Laden, and therefore any future Al Qaeda attacks on the US are his fault.
Boy, Bush sure better hope that there are no Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attacks occur during Obama’s administration or it will be really difficult to defend his legacy.
Terrye,
I actually looked at the links you provided about Clinton’s opportunities to get Bin Laden and it is clear to me you don’t know what you are talking about. The supposed Youtube link is a link to AJ’s Jan. 2007 post about Obama. Nothing to do with Clinton.
The other link is an article about Clinton, but it is clear you didn’t actually read it. The central premise of the article is about how CIA Director George Tenet was the real problem, not Clinton. Here is the key part of the article:
“But what troubles me most is Tenet’s handling of the opportunities that CIA officers gave the Clinton administration to capture or kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999. Each time we had intelligence about bin Laden’s whereabouts, Tenet was briefed by senior CIA officers at Langley and by operatives in the field. He would nod and assure his anxious subordinates that he would stress to Clinton and his national security team that the chances of capturing bin Laden were solid and that the intelligence was not going to get better. Later, he would insist that he had kept up his end of the bargain, but that the NSC had decided not to strike.
Since 2001, however, several key Clinton counterterrorism insiders (including NSC staffers Richard A. Clarke, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon) have reported that Tenet consistently denigrated the targeting data on bin Laden, causing the president and his team to lose confidence in the hard-won intelligence. “We could never get over the critical hurdle of being able to corroborate Bin Ladin’s whereabouts,” Tenet now writes. That of course is untrue, but it spared him from ever having to explain the awkward fallout if an attempt to get bin Laden failed. None of this excuses Clinton’s disinterest in protecting Americans, but it does show Tenet’s easy willingness to play for patsies the CIA officers who risked their lives to garner intelligence and then to undercut their work to avoid censure if an attack went wrong.”
Given that Bush has blamed the entire “disappointment” of not finding WMDs in Iraq on the CIA and other intelligence agencies, don’t you think that Clinton is entitled to the same excuse?
Con,
Clinton’s 8 years weren’t the same as Bush’s 8 years. We were at war during Bush’s, so Bin Laden has been more careful to stay hidden.
Yes, the burden is on Obama to keep us safe. You can’t blame Bush for intelligence firewalls, missed opportunities and dismantled intelligence gathering. Obama faces a stern test. Bush passed the test.
“Bush passed the test.”
Far, far more people died on U.S. soil from terrorist attacks while Bush was in office, than all other Presidents combined.
Plus, he’s leaving office with two still-ongoing wars, and with the domestic economy in freefall.
You have a strange definition of the word “passed”.
Con,
For the recidivist rate, at Gitmo, see:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/01/pentagon-61-released-gitmo-detainees.html
Wikipedia is OK for some things, but a poor source when debating here. LOL
Macker:
If your point is that a long stay in GITMO, with the sleep deprivation, forced standing, and freezing cold 8-foot-square cells, could actually turn someone into a terrorist – you’ll get no argument from me.
Guy, Guy, Guy,
911 was partly attributable to:
• The Church Commission which dismantled our intelligence capabilities.
• Janet Reno and Jamie Gorelick forbidding the sharing of intelligence between agencies.
• Clinton’s treating prior terrorism as a “law enforcement” problem
• Clinton’s negligence in pursuing Bin Laden.
•Gore and the Dems contesting the election and preventing Bush from getting his people in place. Even Nixon didn’t do that!
“ongoing wars” – nearing victory and 50 million people liberated.
“economy in freefall” – Bush inherited a recession and even this one was Dem caused. Check out Dodd, Frank, Raines and Schumer.
Bush passed the test of history!!
Excerpt from Bush interview:
… I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him and they gave me a list of tools, and I said are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made. And I think when people study the history of this particular episode, they’ll find out we gained good information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in order to protect our country.
Excerpt on Congressional Approval:
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
[...]
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).
Individual lawmakers’ recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.(emphasis added)”
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/01/13/bush-admits-authorizing-torture-or-did-he-1.php
The Church Commission??? Are you high? The fact that the FBI can no longer eavesdrop on civil rights leaders (like they were doing to Martin Luther King, Jr.) was somehow “partially responsible” for 9/11? You’re saying that if the President was still able to illegally spy on his political enemies, we could have prevented that attack?
To point out the Church Commission as a FAILURE in this country’s history proves that you truly don’t know who the enemy is.
Also, please name one political appointee (”his people in place”) that was prevented, or even delayed past Jan 2000, by “Gore and the Dems”.
Your other bullet points are at least debatable. But you are truly delusional if you believe those two.
Frogg:
You will get no argument from me on those points. I fully believe that we will never get true investigations into the “torture regime”, precisely because the top leadership of both parties were fully aware of what was going on. Pelosi, Rockefeller, possibly Reid – they all knew what was going on, and raised no significant objections.
That doesn’t make it right, however – it just means that, as usual, politicians will do whatever they can to cover their own asses, and sweep it all under the rug. There will never be a true reckoning, because it would take down too many people in power.
McCain did a 180 and voted against the bill to ban waterboarding.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/
I think McCain’s actual stand was to have very principled guidelines on the treatment of prisoners……..but, to give authority to the President to use harder interrogation tactics with prisoners known to have information that could save lives.
I’m pretty sure I once heard Obama agree with that.
Guy,
Whoever pointed to the Church commission and how it laid the ground work for 9-11 is 100% correct. Look through my posts on NSA-FISA. Search on the Church Commission – it is all in the record.
Frogg:
I think it’s even simpler than that.
If someone in the CIA, or some similar agency, determines that using torture on a suspect is the only way to get necessary, time-relevant info: then go ahead and do so. If the act really does save lives, I am all for it.
BUT… if that torture is then discovered by a Congressional oversight committee, that person should expect to be brought before that committee. And then, this person can then explain why they did what they did. And if they can prove that their actions saved lives: Awesome! Let them go free.
But to give an administrative approval of torture – to publicly recognize that we have agents who have tortured – and then to do nothing? Even if no one can prove that a single thing we learned from that torture saved a single life? (And I challenge any of you to show me one single piece of evidence that it did.) Then we have already lost – now, we’re the bad guys.
AJ:
For the most part, you seem to be a reasonable person, in terms of racial relations.
One of the things discovered by the Church Commission was that the U.S. government was illegally spying on civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. The hope was to turn then into Communist sympathizers, in the public opinion.
So – do you support that method of public relations?
If so – isn’t that race hate?
If not – this would not have come into public view if it was not for the Church Commission. Would you prefer that this race hatred be hidden, just to protect “state secrets”?
Guy,
Only an idiot would conflict the clearly illegal acts of the 60’s and 70’s with monitoring terrorist attackers in the 1990’s.
The Church Committee used crimes to create criminally negligent processes. Just because they were against crimes does not endow them with having produced good solutions. 90% of the world’s screw ups come from well intentioned idiots.
Neville Chamberlain ring a bell?
Guy, you are so mis-informed and one sighted that, generally speaking, it’s not worth anyone’s time refuting what you say because you don’t understand the issues anyhow.
If you don’t think torture is ever warranted, let me give you an example and tell me if you would authorize torture.
scenario: you have a 4 year old daughter that someone kidnapped and the kidnapper is captured and you learn from him that your daughter is buried underground and has a 4 hour air supply and will die at the end of that time. the kidnapper refuses to tell you where she is buried.
Do you:
1. say, well ok, I’d sure like for you to tell me where she is, but if you don’t want to, I’d like to make sure you are comfortable and are not inconvenienced in any way, hey that’s the way we Americans are.
2. Put his balls in a vise and tighten the vise one notch at a time until he elected to a) lose his balls, or b) tell you something.
and with b) the stipulation is the vise isn’t loosened until she is actually found(and he knows that ahead of time)
and note this. Other’s parents children are just as important to them as your’s is to you. Just because it’s someone else’s hand tightening the vise doesn’t alter the ethics.
In case you would like my answer, it would be no. 2, except I would tighten 2 or 3 notches at a time.
Oh, and Guy, just because McCain misspoke about Japanese water torture doesn’t make it a fact.
Guy:
You say that more Americans died on our soil when Bush was president. Oh please. That is so stupid. If the first attack on the World Trade Center had gone as planned in 1993, that would not be the case. And the fact that it did not go as planned had nothing to do with the Clinton administration being on the job. It had to do with a miscalculation on the part of the terrorists.
And if Gore had become president, there is no reason at all to believe 9/11 would not have happened. The plan had been in the works when Clinton left office and he did nothing about it, because he did not know about it. So blaming Bush for that is just stupid.
And Osama was not only not in hiding for much of the 90s he was actually running around and having meetings and getting interviewed and all kinds of nonsense. The Clinton administration just did not take the whole AlQaida declares war on the US thing seriously.
Bush has kept this country safe. Now it is Obama’s turn and considering the savage attacks visited on Bush by his fellow Americans with Ds behind their names, I think it is only fair that they learn how to take it as well as they dish it out. It is your turn now.
But of course Democrats live by another standard. For instance, if you are a Democrat you can work at creating a collapse in the lending industry and never have to say you are sorry. Just blame Bush and give Chris Dodd a pat on the back. Typical.
Redteam,
There are so many problem with your scenerio I don’t know where to begin.
First and formost, the scenerio you describe has NEVER happened and NEVER will happen in real life. Give me one example of when the US, or any country for that matter, captured a terrorist hours before a bomb was going to go off or some terrorist plan was about to be implemented. You apparently have been watching too much of the TV show 24 that you forgot it is a fictional show and doesn’t reflect reality. Why would you set the entire policy based on a hypothetical scenerio that has never happened and never will happen?
Second, you wrongly assume that torturing the guy in this scenerio would automatically result in him providing you accurate information. In the scenerio you suggested, the kidnapper could easily tell you the wrong location knowing that by the time you figure this out it will be too late. Terrorist are trained to give misinformation under interrogation just like we train our soldiers.
Third, you assume that you got the right guy. What happens if after you are done putting his balls in the vice and cranking it, you subsequently find out that he wasn’t even the kidnapper? Tell him, oops, my bad?
Lastly, you incorrectly assume that there is a consensus that torture is the most effective means of interrogation. The FBI and military interrogators did not agree with the harsh interrogation methodology principly on grounds that they don’t believe it is as effective.
Putting all of that aside, I’ll answer your question and tell you what I would do if your hypothetical actually happened to show you how silly your example is. I’d also pick no. 2 regardless of whether it was legal or not. If I had to go to prison for 100 years to protect either one of my daughters, I’d do it in a heartbeat. The real question is would I want torture to be a regular part of our law enforcement policy just in case that extremely rare scenerio would occur to me or my family? The answer is absolutely no. I’d simply be willing to break the law and face the the consequences if such an unfortunate event occured.
GuyFawkes, conman . . .
The question I am about to ask is where the rubber meets the road.
Would you personally be willing to die in a terrorist attack on the United States that could have been averted by the use of the aggressive interrogation techniques that you describe as “torture?”
Would you be willing to allow your wife, your children, or anyone else you love in a terrorist attack on the United States that could have been averted by the use of the aggressive interrogation techniques that you describe as “torture?”
If you can sincerely answer “Yes” to those questions . . . then you may get all sanctimonious about “torture.” (And if you can sincerely answer “Yes” to both of those questions, you’re an even more cold-blooded sonofabitch than I am, and I’ve done some severely cold-blooded sonofabitch deeds in my life.)
You may condemn a deed committed by someone else only if you are willing to forgo the benefits of that deed.
Seeing all of the responses blaming Clinton for 9-11 and the Democrats for the economic crises reminded me of a comment a moderate Republican friend made to me shortly before the election that I believe encapsulates one of the major problems with the GOP right now. He was telling me that he was voting Democratic for the first time in his life because the GOP has morphed from the party of accountability to the party of excuses.
Even if you assume that all of our current problems are the sole or primary cause of some Democratic policy or legislation adopted in the 1970s, 80s or 90s (an idea that is so stupid I can’t believe I’m actually responding to it), why don’t you people hold Bush and the Republicans accountable for not change those policies? Republicans ran on the platform that they were going to change Washington D.C. Republicans had complete control over both Congress and the White House from 2000-2006, and then had a weak Democratic controlled Congress from 2006-2008 that would roll over at the slightest threat from Bush. They could have removed the impediments of the Church Commission and Gorlick wall. They could have decided to take the threat of Bin Laden more seriously and pursued him more aggressively. They could have reigned in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and changed all of the “liberal” policies you claim caused the problem.
The problem is that the Republicans didn’t do any of these things. They either elected not to pursue them or they were incapable of accomplishing them. That is a failure of leadership. A President should be judged both on what he did and what he didn’t do. So listening to Republicans blame everything on so-called liberal policies from a decade ago as if they were powerless to do anything about it over the last 8 years is ludicrious.
The vast majority of Americans rightfully judge Presidents on the results. They don’t want to hear excuses as to why things were not their fault or how there was nothing they could have done to change circumstances – they just want results and accountability. After 8 years of Republican rule, our country is clearly not better off than it was in 2000 – worst terrorist attack in history, two mismanaged wars, WMD faisco, Katrina, the worst economic recession since the depression, etc. all on their watch. And yet all you hear from the GOP is excuse after excuse as to why it was really someone elses fault. That is why the GOP lost this election so badly and the GOP party is in such dire straights.
The GOP sold the country on the idea that they were the party of accountability and would make our government accountable if given the power. After gaining that public trust, they screwed everything up and now have nothing but excuses. Unless and until the GOP owns up to the obvious fact that they are primarily accountable for the events over the last 8 years, the GOP will be spending a long time as the minority party. Americans don’t like whiners – they want people who can get the job done and accept accountability for the results.
Con,
Your theory of accountability is to make Bush accountable for your mistakes and to give Clinton credit for Reagan’s tax cut economy.
See this for perspective:
History will show that George W Bush was right – Telegraph
Cobalt,
I’ll answer your question – and then explain why it has no relevancy to the issue at hand. The answer to both questions is no, in particular the second question related to my family. I think I already covered the reasons why in response to Redteam’s hypothetical.
The reason why your question is irrelevant is that our country cannot adopt policies based on such hypotheticals. There are a lot of really bad things I would be willing to do in order to protect my family. But that doesn’t mean that we want to legalize all of the bad deeds I or you would be willing to do to save our families. Let me ask you this – would you be willing to kill a terrorist or any other human being in order to save your families lives? I would in a heartbeat, but that doesn’t mean that I think we should adopt policies that legalize killing people in an interrogation.
Our country has faced many enemies in its history that were far more dangerous that Al Qaeda without resorting to torture.
Macker,
No, my theory is to hold the president in office primarily accountable for the events that happen on their watch. I don’t blame Nixon/Ford for the problems Carter encountered under his presidency. I don’t blame Bush I for the problems that occured on Clinton’s watch. Same goes for the GOP presidents. Leadership is about taking accountability for events that occur under your watch.
Your theory is to blame everything on the Democrats and provide excuses for all of the Republican failures. Why would Americans want to elect Republicans when they apparently can’t do anything to reverse the Democratic policies and all they do is make excuses for their own failings?
Con,
You have a pretty simple theory of accountability: Just blame the person left holding the bag. Skip the real culprits and root causes.
Macker:
You mean, as opposed to your theory: Just blame the Democrats?
Guy,
Yes, when it has their fingerprints all over it.
Cobalt:
Yup – what conman said: I would do whatever it would take to protect my family.
And if I did something illegal, I would expect to be arrested and hauled into court, where I could explain myself.
As I’ve said several times – you all really don’t know who the enemy is. I’m not saying that I would never, ever expect a CIA agent to engage in torture. (I’m not even saying there are some bastards out there who might deserve it.)
The problem comes when it is explicity endorsed by the government of this country. If some Jack Bauer-wannabe decides to stab a guy in the eardrum with a ball point pen because he thinks it’ll get him info – well, okay. I’m not inviting that guy to my house for drinks – but okay, he did what he thought was needed. I just want him to do know that what he’s doing is illegal – and I certainly don’t want it to be an endorsed policy of my own government. I mean – at what point do we stop being any better than the KGB in their heyday?
And you better be damn sure that, if his actions were uncovered, I would expect him to be arrested, or at the very least investigated by Congress. If he can prove that his actions saved lives – great, give him a slap on the wrist and let him go. Otherwise, he should expect to do hard time.
There are no limits to what I would do to protect my family. But I also realize that I could be punished if I cross a certain line. I love my family enough to risk that punishment.
Guy
There are no limits to what I would do to protect my family.
But you would put limits on what other people could do to protect their families? what? a double standard?
Guy,
Let’s not confuse the facts. There is no doubt that waterboarding has saved thousands of lives. The CIA head has testified to that, ex-CIA agents (even those opposed to waterboarding) have stated that, the Administration has stated that, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, The Bojinka Plot, etc.
Is it torture? There seems to be a debate about it. In my reading about the history of waterboarding…..there have been varying tactics and degrees of waterboarding throughout history…..some of which could be considered torture….the later methods would not be considered torture.
My own conclusion is that if it is good enough to use on our own best and brightest special forces in training excercises….it is good enough to use on cold blooded killers who want to kill Americans. And, if a Fox News reporter can demonstrate waterboarding live on tv (with no harm done)…..it is not torture.
But, that is just my opinion. And neither you nor I have all the information we need to make a full judgement. So, I have no problems with our government debating the issue and coming up with guidelines for our military and CIA to follow that are legal and don’t include torture (permanent physical or mental damage) by whatever definition they can agree upon. Then we all have to live with that decision as a country. We will probably continue to tweak many of our policies and procedures over the next decade (back and forth) and through several presidencies until we arrive at a place we are all comfortable with. I think Bush has done an excellent job in those beginning phases to lay the foundation.
However, regardless of what our field policies are……I still think if we have a top known terrorist, and reason to suspect he has knowledge of current plots that will kill thousands of people…..coerced interrogation methods (not torture) should be allowed as a tool (not banned)……and the authority to do so should come at the top level by the CIC/POTUS only (with knowledge by the Chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee of the reason to do it, and the information obtained).
Time will tell what Obama does. He has yet to be in that position of making a decision that may save thousands of lives or not.
Redteam:
“But you would put limits on what other people could do to protect their families? what? a double standard?”
You do realize that my comment is right above yours, right? You know that people need to use one mouse click to see the full content?
“But I also realize that I could be punished if I cross a certain line. I love my family enough to risk that punishment.”
If those “other people” love their family (or their country) enough to risk that punishment – then let them go ahead and do so. Let them get in front of a jury, or a congressional committee, and explain why they did what they did.
If they don’t – if they are too cowardly to face the repurcussions of their actions, or if they don’t truly believe that what they are doing is right and just – then no, I don’t believe the US government should be actively trying to protect those sadistic cowards.
Frogg:
That is honestly a very reasonable argument. If there is a decision made to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” on a suspect, and that is approved by “the CIC/POTUS only (with knowledge by the Chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee of the reason to do it, and the information obtained)” – then I’m probably okay with it.
Nonetheless, that doesn’t preclude latter investigations into whether or not the CIC/POTUS made a decision under those circumstances that was illegal. As I’ve said: let him get in front of a Congressional committe, or a jury, or whatever, and argue it. If the facts are on his side – great. If not – then he should be considering those facts when he makes that decision in the first place.
okay bush and clinton were massive tools, ww2 was a very different war, (hey what about vietnam) , osama may have had something to do with it , if he really did we really would never know, and when the detainees get let out of baby jail.
Obama wont just let them go, they will go to a intirly different
facility somewhere else.
On the other hand if a man strapped with a bomb comes running full force at me when im in the heat of battle,
These men r out to get us, any way they can and they r willing to die for their cause. Remember the Vietcong in vietnam
because they may be one in the same. I have hope that we will win this war, the cost is great but this is america we will overcome , thank u for your attention goodbye.
[...] next big news was how Obama would close GITMO, leaving terrorist killers to be freed or tried here in the US. I am fairly certain no one was [...]
Nonetheless, that doesn’t preclude latter investigations into whether or not the CIC/POTUS made a decision under those circumstances that was illegal. As I’ve said: let him get in front of a Congressional committe, or a jury, or whatever, and argue it. If the facts are on his side – great.
So what’s your take on Senators and Representatives who know about it, approve of it, and actually supply funds to do it–but only as long as it’s to their political advantage to do so, and then proceed to pretend that they’re shocked, SHOCKED?
By my (admittedly layman’s) understanding of the law, if performing those interrogations was criminal, then the Senators and Representatives who did not immediately report the interrogations to the DoJ are guilty of misprision of a felony at a minimum, if not of being an outright accessory (depending on when they were notified and/or whether they assisted in the commission of the felony or felonies in question).
So when can we expect to see you and conman loudly calling for Daschle, Reid, Clinton, Leahy, Rockefeller, Pelosi, and the rest of (to use William Gaines’ immortal line) “the usual gang of idiots” getting indicted?
“So when can we expect to see you and conman loudly calling for Daschle, Reid, Clinton, Leahy, Rockefeller, Pelosi, and the rest of (to use William Gaines’ immortal line) “the usual gang of idiots” getting indicted?”
Right now. Anyone who knew about this and did nothing to stop it is liable and should be investigated. However, as I said earlier in this very thread:
“I fully believe that we will never get true investigations into the “torture regime”, precisely because the top leadership of both parties were fully aware of what was going on. Pelosi, Rockefeller, possibly Reid – they all knew what was going on, and raised no significant objections.”
I realize this may be difficult for some of you to grasp, but I don’t mindlessly defend politicians just because they have a (D) after their name. My loyalty isn’t to a political party – it’s to what’s best for the country.
Guy, you continue to amaze me as to how stupid an individual can argue.
Nonetheless, that doesn’t preclude latter investigations into whether or not the CIC/POTUS made a decision under those circumstances that was illegal. As I’ve said: let him get in front of a Congressional committe, or a jury, or whatever, and argue it.
So your position is that every decision a CIC makes, he should have to get in front of a committee or jury and answer questions and justify his actions?
Just how ridiculous do you want to get with that? If he flies on AirForce 1, should he have to justify the expense in front of a committee?
If he is notified of an incoming ballistic missile, should he first assemble a committee and see if they will all support him if he takes an action to prevent it? would he have to justify the expense of launching an anti-ballistic missile?
If terrorists capture an airliner and point it toward the Empire State building, does he have to assemble a committee to see if they will support him if he orders it to be intercepted? Wouldn’t want to ‘torture’ those poor terrorists by killing them, would we?
Both the constitution and Congress have given the President the authority to do what he feels is necessary to defend American citizens. It does not say that he will have to go before a committee and defend his actions. His actions are justified solely on the basis that ‘he took the action he thought was necessary to defend Americans’. No other justification is necessary. That’s what the polling place if for.
and yes, I knew your post was just above mine, I took that quote from your post. You didn’t answer why you feel like it is okay for you to defend your family, but it’s not okay with you for the President (who is empowered to do so) to defend your family for you.
Look, I know you want to continue to make an ass of yourself, but please attempt to use one grain of brainpower so that your ignorance and stupidity will not be so obvious. i.e.; quit being a typical liberal.
Have a good day.