This will do wonders for their personal safety, I'm sure.
"According to current and former government officials, the CIA's secret waterboarding program was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists now working out of an unmarked office building in Spokane, Washington.
Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, former military officers, together founded Mitchell Jessen and Associates.
Both men declined to speak to ABC News citing non-disclosure agreements with the CIA. But sources say Jessen and Mitchell together designed and implemented the CIA's interrogation program."
I'd like to know who these "sources" are that say two men designed an interrogation plan for an entire government agency. You can't order a box of pens for a government office with less than five people.
The abc contributors, Brian Ross, Matthew Cole, and Joseph Rhee, may also want to pause for a second and get their story straight: "...and a new focus on two private contractors who were apparently directing the brutal sessions that President Obama calls torture...Former U.S. officials say the two men were essentially the architects..."
Well, were they directing the interrogations, or were they kind of-sort of the ones who designed the program?
"Both Mitchell and Jessen were previously involved in the U.S. military program to train pilots how to survive behind enemy lines and resist brutal tactics if captured." Okay, now watch this next part: "But it turns out neither Mitchell nor Jessen had any experience in conducting actual interrogations before the CIA hired them.
'They went to two individuals who had no interrogation experience,' said Col. Kleinman. 'They are not interrogators.'"
If Mitchell and Jessen were teaching pilots how to resist harsh interrogations, that would indicate they have some knowledge of interrogation practices, and should also be a tip-off that since they know what can break a person, they will know what to implement themselves.
Then you have the politicians weighing in. "The use of these tactics tends to increase resistance on the part of the detainee to cooperating with us. So they have the exact opposite effect of what you want," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich).
So I guess that's why they decided to talk, huh?
The writers of the abc news article also haven't caught up with current information, apparently: "The new memos also show waterboarding was used 'with far greater frequency than initially indicated' to even those in the CIA.
Abu Zubaydah was water boarded at least 83 times and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed at least 183 times."
Take a gander at this blog, two posts down. What do you see?
My whole point is not to judge whether Mitchell and Jessen are innocent or guilty, right or wrong; it is to put the brakes on the fervent uproar coming from the left, who want to do anything and everything they can to anyone who had anything to do with George W. Bush's policies, foreign or domestic. They feel wronged, and now they want blood. So much for the bipartisan spirit they all campaigned on.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
100
President Obama has made many bold decisions and committed many blunders during his first 100 days in office. The nice folks at the New York Post put together a list of 100 mistakes perpetrated by Obama and his associates during his first stretch as President. Among my favorites are #20, #26, and #92. Read all of them though, they're good for a laugh...and a cringe.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Despite Earlier Report, Terrorist Was Not Waterboarded 183 Times
While I have no problem with waterboarding terrorists, some people do, and those people were likely horrified when they heard that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. As it turns out, he wasn't. He simply had 183 pours of water on his face, each lasting a few seconds.
Another high level terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, was also not waterboarded 83 times, as reported. "The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times."
See, we're really not bad people!
Another high level terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, was also not waterboarded 83 times, as reported. "The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times."
See, we're really not bad people!
Changing the World's Perception of the United States: The Obama Way
It is no secret that Barack Obama's desired perception of the United States among the rest of the world is that of a kinder, gentler America, one who listens to everyone on the world stage before making decisions. He wants to distance himself, and America's image, from that of former President George W. Bush. The "cowboy" from Texas had a far different way of doing things, and while the rest of the world may have not liked him very much, he got things done and placed America's interests above all.
This article from NPR details some of the things Mr. Obama has done since taking office to distance himself from his predecessor and "restore America's standing" with the rest of the world. Among the steps he's taken (see article) were ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility, prohibiting any kind of torture (i.e. waterboarding), eliminating secret prisons for detainees, and directing that all detainees be handled in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Of course, I must pick apart those decisions. First, by closing Guantanamo Bay and giving the detainees (terrorists) the ability to to challenge their detainments in U.S. courts, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, that these creatures should be given the same legal rights I have. They are not citizens of the United States, they follow no government at all, and they have professed the desire to kill as many Americans as possible. So we're going to give them a push towards freedom to help them do just that? Ludicrous.
Next, eliminating "torture" of detainees. "It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines." Well, what do the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines actually say?
"Enemy Combatant: In general, a person engaged in hostilities against theUnited States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. The term“enemy combatant” includes both “lawful enemy combatants” and “unlawful enemy combatants.” All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status,shall be treated humanely, and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, “Department of Defense Detainee Program”, and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.
–
Lawful Enemy Combatant: Lawful enemy combatants, who are entitled toprotections under the Geneva Conventions, include members of the regulararmed forces of a State Party to the conflict; militia, volunteer corps, and organized resistance movements belonging to a State Party to the conflict, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the laws ofwar; and members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.
–
Unlawful Enemy Combatant: Unlawful enemy combatants are persons not entitled to combatant immunity, who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict. For the purposes of the war on terrorism, the term “unlawful enemy combatant” is defined to include, but is not limited to, an individual who is or was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, orassociated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
Taking that into account, and after reading through the DOD directive and Detainee Treatment Act, as well as this DOD document, I have found that the powers that be don't actually know the extent or legality of the interrogations, because there were no set directives; it was basically a free-for-all, with the interrogators relying on their immediate commanders and the Army Field Manual techniques for guidance. Another issue is that of waterboarding, and if it actually falls under the established definitions of torture. I recommend that you review Army Field Manual 34-52, the descriptions of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the memo from the DOJ, and see what conclusions you can draw for yourself.
The elimination of secret CIA prisons for detainees looks good to the rest of the world, but doesn't really help our cause. I see no reason why the CIA couldn't have continued to whisk away enemy combatants to isolated places where they would be more likely to crack and divulge important information. Instead, with Guantanamo Bay being closed (where many of the CIA detainees went) as well as the secret prisons being closed, the detainees will now likely be housed in regular old prisons, possibly even in the United States, where they will be able to invoke their newly given rights of habeas corpus and avoid any intensive questioning. That will do wonders for our intelligence gathering, I'm sure.
Lastly, terrorists have no ruling government, wear no uniform, and don't abide by the Geneva Conventions. Among the provisions of said Conventions, namely in the Third Convention (which covers the treatment of POWs), are:
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
By those definitions, terrorists do not fall into the category of "POW." Thus, there is no reason to follow the Geneva Conventions when it comes to their treatment. This is not to say we should practice wanton harsh interrogation, but rather to say we should not handicap ourselves and our ability to fight the war correctly simply to appease global opinions.
I'm sure President Obama had good intentions when he made these decisions. Taking into account that he is not a military strategist, however, I doubt he was able to foresee the issues that will stem from them. While the world may like us more now than when President Bush was in office, what solace will that be should another attack occur against the United States?
This article from NPR details some of the things Mr. Obama has done since taking office to distance himself from his predecessor and "restore America's standing" with the rest of the world. Among the steps he's taken (see article) were ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay facility, prohibiting any kind of torture (i.e. waterboarding), eliminating secret prisons for detainees, and directing that all detainees be handled in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
Of course, I must pick apart those decisions. First, by closing Guantanamo Bay and giving the detainees (terrorists) the ability to to challenge their detainments in U.S. courts, we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. There is absolutely no reason, none whatsoever, that these creatures should be given the same legal rights I have. They are not citizens of the United States, they follow no government at all, and they have professed the desire to kill as many Americans as possible. So we're going to give them a push towards freedom to help them do just that? Ludicrous.
Next, eliminating "torture" of detainees. "It requires that all interrogations of detainees in armed conflict, by any government agency, follow the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines." Well, what do the Army Field Manual interrogation guidelines actually say?
"Enemy Combatant: In general, a person engaged in hostilities against theUnited States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. The term“enemy combatant” includes both “lawful enemy combatants” and “unlawful enemy combatants.” All captured or detained personnel, regardless of status,shall be treated humanely, and in accordance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and DOD Directive 2310.1E, “Department of Defense Detainee Program”, and no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law.
–
Lawful Enemy Combatant: Lawful enemy combatants, who are entitled toprotections under the Geneva Conventions, include members of the regulararmed forces of a State Party to the conflict; militia, volunteer corps, and organized resistance movements belonging to a State Party to the conflict, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the laws ofwar; and members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the detaining power.
–
Unlawful Enemy Combatant: Unlawful enemy combatants are persons not entitled to combatant immunity, who engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in violation of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict. For the purposes of the war on terrorism, the term “unlawful enemy combatant” is defined to include, but is not limited to, an individual who is or was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, orassociated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners."
Taking that into account, and after reading through the DOD directive and Detainee Treatment Act, as well as this DOD document, I have found that the powers that be don't actually know the extent or legality of the interrogations, because there were no set directives; it was basically a free-for-all, with the interrogators relying on their immediate commanders and the Army Field Manual techniques for guidance. Another issue is that of waterboarding, and if it actually falls under the established definitions of torture. I recommend that you review Army Field Manual 34-52, the descriptions of the "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the memo from the DOJ, and see what conclusions you can draw for yourself.
The elimination of secret CIA prisons for detainees looks good to the rest of the world, but doesn't really help our cause. I see no reason why the CIA couldn't have continued to whisk away enemy combatants to isolated places where they would be more likely to crack and divulge important information. Instead, with Guantanamo Bay being closed (where many of the CIA detainees went) as well as the secret prisons being closed, the detainees will now likely be housed in regular old prisons, possibly even in the United States, where they will be able to invoke their newly given rights of habeas corpus and avoid any intensive questioning. That will do wonders for our intelligence gathering, I'm sure.
Lastly, terrorists have no ruling government, wear no uniform, and don't abide by the Geneva Conventions. Among the provisions of said Conventions, namely in the Third Convention (which covers the treatment of POWs), are:
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
By those definitions, terrorists do not fall into the category of "POW." Thus, there is no reason to follow the Geneva Conventions when it comes to their treatment. This is not to say we should practice wanton harsh interrogation, but rather to say we should not handicap ourselves and our ability to fight the war correctly simply to appease global opinions.
I'm sure President Obama had good intentions when he made these decisions. Taking into account that he is not a military strategist, however, I doubt he was able to foresee the issues that will stem from them. While the world may like us more now than when President Bush was in office, what solace will that be should another attack occur against the United States?
Monday, April 27, 2009
Wow, You Are Really Not Intelligent
Ordinarily, I wouldn't link to articles written by people who have serious mental issues and hate America, but I felt the need to share this one if for no other reason than to demonstrate the incomplete way of thinking such people are afflicted with.
What we have here is an article by Markos Moulitsas, aka "Kos" of Daily Kos fame. "Kos" is well known for his, shall we say, "batsh*t insane" views of the United States and those not leaning heavily left. In this article, he tries to explain why the GOP is, of course, pitiful and on the wrong side of pretty much every issue.
Here is the beginning of his article (emphasis mine): "Pity the poor GOP, isolated and lonely, on the fringes of a country that is moving forward without it. Indeed, watching GOP leaders speak these days is painful, like listening to a racist uncle who doesn’t realize that certain words are simply no longer acceptable in civilized company.
For example, there was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) back in February, accusing President Obama of 'an audacious effort to Europeanize the country,' adding that Obama’s efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act would 'turn the country into a Western European-type country pretty rapidly.'
This line of criticism seemed a bit bizarre. Do Americans now hate Europeans? Had I somehow missed the memo? I needed to know if I was behind the times, so I asked nonpartisan pollster Research 2000 to include the question as part of the Daily Kos weekly survey. Well, it turns out that 63 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the continent, compared to just 29 percent who don’t.
Uh-huh. You asked a non-partisan pollster (acceptable) to put a poll on your heavily liberal website, and claim the findings are representative of Americans as a whole?
Or how about completely missing the point of McConnell's message, which is that by basically eliminating secret ballots and making it easier for unions to build their ranks, business will suffer due to the usual exorbitant union demands. This excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article summarizes it quite well: "The larger union economic model here is Europe, where organized labor first led the charge to build welfare states. Then it concentrated on fighting back attempts to roll back costly entitlements and regulations once the bill of chronic debt, stagnant growth and stubbornly high unemployment came due." An current example of why unions no longer have a place in the workforce is the U.S. automotive industry; two of the "Big 3" are close to bankruptcy, while foreign rivals with plants in the U.S. that have non-union workforces, rake in profits.
So to answer Mr. Moulitsas' comment, no, Americans don't now hate Europeans. We just hate having our businesses destroyed by corrupt organizations that declare themselves the voice of the working people they represent.
One more thing from the Moulitsas article: "How about national security? Republicans can always depend on that, can’t they? True to form, they spent this past weekend in a collective frenzy over Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was apoplectic, accusing Obama of bolstering America’s enemies. Yet polling has consistently shown the American people prefer dialogue with countries like Cuba and Iran over the typical conservative response of belligerence and bombs.
'Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States,' Obama said in response to that criticism. 'It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.'
It’s easy for Obama to mock detractors when they are so clearly out of step with the American mainstream, be it on Venezuela, France, San Francisco, the gays or pretty much anything else. Their fringe, mostly Southern, base may love the rhetoric, but it ultimately alienates the women, youth and independents whom Republicans need for an electoral revival."
No, "the American people" don't support dialogue with our enemies, a slight majority of the American people favor dialogue with our enemies, as polls show. Don't forget that a slight majority of the American people also voted for Barack Obama to be President. Coincidence? I think not. I remember a sign hanging on the wall of a classroom in my middle school; it said, "What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular." How true.
I must also take issue with Mr. Obama's statement that we aren't endangering the strategic interests of the United States by capitulating to our enemies. Of course we're not in danger militarily; we're in danger because Obama bends to their wills and is likely to push legislation that will benefit them economically and socially (see Cuba). Also, what kind of message does it send to the oppressed peoples and political prisoners in countries like Venezuela, when the leader of the free world is hamming it up with a cruel, corrupt dictator?
Lastly, why does "Kos" think that the only people opposed to Obama are the "fringe" of the right, who are apparently all old Southern men? The last time I checked, there were plenty of women, young people, and even *gasp* Northerners that don't agree with President Obama. Stop drinking your own Kool-Aid and take a trip to the South. You may be shocked to find that there are actually people in that region that like President Obama, and may have even voted for him. Likewise, you may be shocked to find that there are actually people across the country that don't support gay marriage, and some of them are gay! Ah, America. Don't you just love it?
What we have here is an article by Markos Moulitsas, aka "Kos" of Daily Kos fame. "Kos" is well known for his, shall we say, "batsh*t insane" views of the United States and those not leaning heavily left. In this article, he tries to explain why the GOP is, of course, pitiful and on the wrong side of pretty much every issue.
Here is the beginning of his article (emphasis mine): "Pity the poor GOP, isolated and lonely, on the fringes of a country that is moving forward without it. Indeed, watching GOP leaders speak these days is painful, like listening to a racist uncle who doesn’t realize that certain words are simply no longer acceptable in civilized company.
For example, there was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) back in February, accusing President Obama of 'an audacious effort to Europeanize the country,' adding that Obama’s efforts to pass the Employee Free Choice Act would 'turn the country into a Western European-type country pretty rapidly.'
This line of criticism seemed a bit bizarre. Do Americans now hate Europeans? Had I somehow missed the memo? I needed to know if I was behind the times, so I asked nonpartisan pollster Research 2000 to include the question as part of the Daily Kos weekly survey. Well, it turns out that 63 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the continent, compared to just 29 percent who don’t.
Uh-huh. You asked a non-partisan pollster (acceptable) to put a poll on your heavily liberal website, and claim the findings are representative of Americans as a whole?
Or how about completely missing the point of McConnell's message, which is that by basically eliminating secret ballots and making it easier for unions to build their ranks, business will suffer due to the usual exorbitant union demands. This excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article summarizes it quite well: "The larger union economic model here is Europe, where organized labor first led the charge to build welfare states. Then it concentrated on fighting back attempts to roll back costly entitlements and regulations once the bill of chronic debt, stagnant growth and stubbornly high unemployment came due." An current example of why unions no longer have a place in the workforce is the U.S. automotive industry; two of the "Big 3" are close to bankruptcy, while foreign rivals with plants in the U.S. that have non-union workforces, rake in profits.
So to answer Mr. Moulitsas' comment, no, Americans don't now hate Europeans. We just hate having our businesses destroyed by corrupt organizations that declare themselves the voice of the working people they represent.
One more thing from the Moulitsas article: "How about national security? Republicans can always depend on that, can’t they? True to form, they spent this past weekend in a collective frenzy over Obama’s handshake with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) was apoplectic, accusing Obama of bolstering America’s enemies. Yet polling has consistently shown the American people prefer dialogue with countries like Cuba and Iran over the typical conservative response of belligerence and bombs.
'Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States,' Obama said in response to that criticism. 'It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.'
It’s easy for Obama to mock detractors when they are so clearly out of step with the American mainstream, be it on Venezuela, France, San Francisco, the gays or pretty much anything else. Their fringe, mostly Southern, base may love the rhetoric, but it ultimately alienates the women, youth and independents whom Republicans need for an electoral revival."
No, "the American people" don't support dialogue with our enemies, a slight majority of the American people favor dialogue with our enemies, as polls show. Don't forget that a slight majority of the American people also voted for Barack Obama to be President. Coincidence? I think not. I remember a sign hanging on the wall of a classroom in my middle school; it said, "What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular." How true.
I must also take issue with Mr. Obama's statement that we aren't endangering the strategic interests of the United States by capitulating to our enemies. Of course we're not in danger militarily; we're in danger because Obama bends to their wills and is likely to push legislation that will benefit them economically and socially (see Cuba). Also, what kind of message does it send to the oppressed peoples and political prisoners in countries like Venezuela, when the leader of the free world is hamming it up with a cruel, corrupt dictator?
Lastly, why does "Kos" think that the only people opposed to Obama are the "fringe" of the right, who are apparently all old Southern men? The last time I checked, there were plenty of women, young people, and even *gasp* Northerners that don't agree with President Obama. Stop drinking your own Kool-Aid and take a trip to the South. You may be shocked to find that there are actually people in that region that like President Obama, and may have even voted for him. Likewise, you may be shocked to find that there are actually people across the country that don't support gay marriage, and some of them are gay! Ah, America. Don't you just love it?
That President Obama and His Silly Teleprompter
Ahh, President Obama cracks me up sometimes. His spending proposals, his ineptness with even the most simple social gestures, the way he carefully chooses his words. It may come as a surprise that his list of speech errors is long and distinguished, something that can happen because a) you're making the speech up on the fly and hit a snag, or b) YOU CAN'T READ A TELEPROMPTER CORRECTLY. With Obama, we all know for sure it isn't "a."
I don't recall any prior President relying solely on a teleprompter for all of his speeches. Maybe it's simply a format Obama enjoys using. Maybe he has an aversion to notecards, whether they're printed on new or recycled paper. Whatever the reason, one thing is certain: when there is no teleprompter, you can expect Obama to avoid talking as much as possible, and stammer when he does talk. For being a great orator, he doesn't orate very well without that teleprompter. At least when he's using the video device, chances are the speeches have been fact-checked and edited for errors, thus helping him avoid any gaffes. I'm looking at you, Joe Biden.
I don't recall any prior President relying solely on a teleprompter for all of his speeches. Maybe it's simply a format Obama enjoys using. Maybe he has an aversion to notecards, whether they're printed on new or recycled paper. Whatever the reason, one thing is certain: when there is no teleprompter, you can expect Obama to avoid talking as much as possible, and stammer when he does talk. For being a great orator, he doesn't orate very well without that teleprompter. At least when he's using the video device, chances are the speeches have been fact-checked and edited for errors, thus helping him avoid any gaffes. I'm looking at you, Joe Biden.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Effectiveness Of Harsh Questioning Is Unclear?
According to some people on both sides of the political isle, as well as in the media, the effectiveness of harsh questioning is unclear. They say things like, "The systematic, calculated infliction of this scale of prolonged torment is immoral, debasing the perpetrators and the captives," said Philip D. Zelikow, a political counselor to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who reviewed secret Bush administration reports about the program in 2005. "Second, forfeiting our high ground, the practices also alienate needed allies in the common fight, even allies within our own government. Third, the gains are dubious when the alternatives are searchingly compared. And then, after all, there is still the law."
"The Obama administration's top intelligence officer, Dennis C. Blair, has said the information obtained through the interrogation program was of 'high value.' But he also concluded that those gains weren't worth the cost."
So here we have men from both sides giving their reasons why the "harsh" interrogation tactics should not have been used. I take issue with both statements. First, Mr. Zelikow says that such treatment, for a prolonged period, is immoral. Immoral compared to what? Cutting off the heads of innocent people? Hijacking aircraft and flying them into civilian buildings? Sending suicide bombers into crowded marketplaces to inflict maximum damage? Who is he to say what is immoral and what isn't, especially in the face of what our enemy is doing? Also, Zelikow says the gains are "dubious" when the alternatives are searchingly compared, meaning he thinks less-harsh methods may have yielded the same information. Let me ask you this: if you knew something someone else needed to know, which would make you spill the beans, having a stern talking to, or being deprived of sleep, having water poured on your face to make you feel like you were about to drown, and having your head bounced off a piece of plywood (to note, none of which cause permanent damage)? That's what I thought. Parents give their kids a stern talk when they do something bad. Terrorists are not kids, they are murderers or aspiring murderers. The fact that they made it to the interrogation without being killed on the battlefield should be relief enough.
Then we have Mr. Blair of the Obama administration. He says, though the information gained from the interrogations was of "high value," those gains weren't worth the cost. Did the information save even one life? If it did, then the cost was worth it. Simple as that. We are in a war, do we want to win or not?
Nitpicking and Monday-morning quarterbacking have no place in the War on Terror (oops, I mean the "Overseas Contingency Operation"). If we are going to go back and retroactively punish intelligence officials and past Presidents because of steps they took to keep us safe from terrorist attack, why not go even further back and punish those who decided to keep Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II? Wasn't that racially motivated? The point is, where do you draw the line? Where does common sense cease and political maneuvering begin? It disgusts me that we are hanging out to dry those in the intelligence community that did what they were supposed to do to keep us from being attacked again. Have we been attacked again since September 11, 2001? No. How then can the effectiveness of the interrogations be questioned? The "folks" in Washington need to stop playing politics with our safety and start realizing that a time of war requires a different kind of thinking and different kinds of actions.
"The Obama administration's top intelligence officer, Dennis C. Blair, has said the information obtained through the interrogation program was of 'high value.' But he also concluded that those gains weren't worth the cost."
So here we have men from both sides giving their reasons why the "harsh" interrogation tactics should not have been used. I take issue with both statements. First, Mr. Zelikow says that such treatment, for a prolonged period, is immoral. Immoral compared to what? Cutting off the heads of innocent people? Hijacking aircraft and flying them into civilian buildings? Sending suicide bombers into crowded marketplaces to inflict maximum damage? Who is he to say what is immoral and what isn't, especially in the face of what our enemy is doing? Also, Zelikow says the gains are "dubious" when the alternatives are searchingly compared, meaning he thinks less-harsh methods may have yielded the same information. Let me ask you this: if you knew something someone else needed to know, which would make you spill the beans, having a stern talking to, or being deprived of sleep, having water poured on your face to make you feel like you were about to drown, and having your head bounced off a piece of plywood (to note, none of which cause permanent damage)? That's what I thought. Parents give their kids a stern talk when they do something bad. Terrorists are not kids, they are murderers or aspiring murderers. The fact that they made it to the interrogation without being killed on the battlefield should be relief enough.
Then we have Mr. Blair of the Obama administration. He says, though the information gained from the interrogations was of "high value," those gains weren't worth the cost. Did the information save even one life? If it did, then the cost was worth it. Simple as that. We are in a war, do we want to win or not?
Nitpicking and Monday-morning quarterbacking have no place in the War on Terror (oops, I mean the "Overseas Contingency Operation"). If we are going to go back and retroactively punish intelligence officials and past Presidents because of steps they took to keep us safe from terrorist attack, why not go even further back and punish those who decided to keep Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II? Wasn't that racially motivated? The point is, where do you draw the line? Where does common sense cease and political maneuvering begin? It disgusts me that we are hanging out to dry those in the intelligence community that did what they were supposed to do to keep us from being attacked again. Have we been attacked again since September 11, 2001? No. How then can the effectiveness of the interrogations be questioned? The "folks" in Washington need to stop playing politics with our safety and start realizing that a time of war requires a different kind of thinking and different kinds of actions.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)